Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

Where are you getting the idea I think the Flood kept things intact? I don't accept edge's claim that there are intact ecosystems within rocks for starters, I think it's all hyperbole. He's making a scenario out of a bunch of dead things, conjuring up relationships from random positions within the rock.I do claim that corals and crinoids were preserved intact because I don't think the Flood was as turbulent as has often been claimed. It had to have been pretty turbulent in the beginning but after that there's no reason to think it was.But the post you are answering was about the general fossil order, not all the specifics you got into.

You seem to have written your post to describe positions you recognize I don't accept, so there's not much for me to respond to. OK but I don't recall saying much about the dates. I did say that millions of years is ridiculous for a microevolution that we can see happening in real living time today. Did I say more than that about dating in that post? I don't recall saying that. My usual argument is of course the opposite, that you can't get to macroevolution from microevolution, that there is a natural barrier to evolution beyond the Kind, which is the fact that evolution inevitably eats up the very genetic diversity it depends on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fact that microevolution occurs in observable time isn't saying why millions of years is ridiculous?

Good grief, don't have a conniption. I said it in specific instances but you seemed to say I said it about everything.

I'd have thought I'd said it enough by now. Strata don't fit the idea of time periods, too flat and horizontal and composed of specific sediments, just as the Flood would have made them. They were never the surface of the earth except between tides perhaps. Not full root systems, broken off. No, not in life position, transported and sprung upright by the weight of the root ball. But they didn't grow during the Flood as I say above, they were transported. Evolutionists aren't in a position to know either. There is no erosion between layers that is anything like erosion that normally occurs on the surface of the Earth. A lot of which I've answered. Who has pointed out the weirdness of expecting a living scenario to have unfolded on top of and between sedimentary rocks, a whole series of living scenarios called Time Periods climbing the geological column from rock to rock. My point is that I'm weighing the evidence and finding the preponderance on the side of the Flood. Sigh. Surely it is implied. I don't try to account for the order by the Flood other than to point out that he lower strata are marine and the upper terrestrial. I argue that the Flood makes sense on other grounds.

And here I thought we were having a perfectly pleasant exchange.

I've proved the Flood many times over by showing that the strata can't be explained by the Time Table Scale, that they are too straight and flat to fit that scenario, that time periods can't be marked by rocks, that the strata were all laid down before any serious erosion took place, such as for instance the Grand Canyon itself, and before any tectonic disturbances. Layers supposedly millions of years apart bent together as one block. Supposedly hundreds of millions of years of undisturbed strata as are seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon a mile deep. The Time Scale can't possibly explain all that. But in less than a year the Flood could have laid the strata, and while the layers were still malleable the tectonic pressures could have bent them as a unit. Couldn't happen if there were millions of years between layers.And lots more than that.The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I forget things -- only too quickly these days -- I read things in the wrong context, I think you mean something else than what I said, I'm distracted because of other discussions going on, I don't think the issue you raise as important as you do, any of that, but I'm not lying. There is no need to accuse anyone of lying, there are always other possible explanations. Even now I'm not sure what this is about so I must have some otrher idea about what I said than you do. Perhaps you should make an effort to quote me when you want to accuse me of lying. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Could be. Depends on the story.

The Bible is accepted as the inerrant word of God by all the Christians I identify with. without contradiction and never false. Its critics are the ones at fault.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Those who take it as the simple truth soar in the spirit. You might try just taking that position some time instead of insisting on the vaporings of the scholars who are just making up stuff anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny, you do that every time you attack the Bible.

You can't read the Bible and deny it without lying to yourself because it's supernatural. You don't read it, it reads you.

Yes I meant Time Scale. I'm thinking of old threads particularly about the Grand Canyon where I showed that the strata are continuous up through the Grand Staircase without any of the kind of erosion that would show time at the surface of the earth, which would be needed to demonstrate the Time Scale, and which is always claimed to be there even though it can't be seen between any of the layers anywhere. The strata fit deposition by water without a hint of any time gaps. They span great distances, in fact they do cover continents, which means nothing lived at that level of the strata. I don't know how you all go on believing in something like time periods that could not possibly have existed, which is shown by the strata themselves. Other evidence I showed on those old threads is the lack of tectonic disturbance until after all the strata were down -- that disturbance created the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase after there were some three miles of strata in place, and before that there isn't one sign of any such disturbance. Lava flows occur at the height of all the strata, not at any other level. Fault lines separate sections of strata that reach the same height. All that shows strata in place before ANY KIND of disturbance whatever. Strata are also shown bending as a block which couldn't happen if there were millions of years between them. Sediments you've got, they make time periods impossible. This is completely inadequate in comparison with the existing geological column. For one thing lake sediments are NOT as straight and flat as the geo column strata, for another the expanse is minuscule by comparison with the extent of the strata. The best it demonstrates is that strata are laid down in water. Not just any flood of course, but the worldwide Flood that drowned the entire world is the best explanation for the enormous depth and horizontal extent as well as the straightness and flatness of the geological column. See paragraph above. It's actually easily proved from the Grand Canyon cross section. You don't say what the point of this is. The angular unconformity in the Grand Canyon occurs at the very bottom of the canyon. It is absurdly explained as the root of a former mountain or mountain chain. I'm still happy with my idea that such unconformities were formed after the strata were in place by tectonic force from the side countered by the weight of strata from above, causing slippage at the point of least resistance where the two forces are balanced. I've shown the utter lack of any kind of erosion that would suggest time at the surface. Compare the lumpiness of the surface today to the flatness of the strata. There is nothing like the actual unevenness and lumpiness and deep cuts and so on that exist in the surface shown in the stack of strata anywhere. Paradigm-induced blindness I would suppose. Probability if nothing else. HUNDREDS of millions of years. But I believe even geologists have assumed such normal tectonic and other activity before present time. It should come as a surprise that there hasn't been any. I consider what I talk about in the top paragraph to be evidence. Lithified strata in the upper level of the Grand Canyon should not be able to bend as a unit because of the extreme brittleness of rocks millions of years older than those above them. They would all have to be equally malleable for such bending to occur. I believe I've shown a lot more than that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dating methods is all you guys have though. And you don't seem to see that they are open to interpretation and are not the hard and fast evidences you think they are. Because the past can't talk back to confirm or disconfirm your conclusions.What I've shown is that the Flood explains much of the actual geological facts, and shows the impossibility of the Geological Time Scale. The evidence is very clear. That means the dating methods are flawed.