Summations Only

You can't make blatant statements like this declaring your determination to maintain your ignorance in discussion and then complain about how unfairly people treat you.--Percy

They treat my incredibly intelligent well argued YEC paradigm unfairly. Every now and then I put together a post that is SO well done and it never gets any recognition. Yet there you were upbraiding me for refusing to recognize the good posts of my opposition. Incredible.Nothing to do with such a post as this brief one, which actually represents a recent rethinking of things EvC: I always stupidly thought someone would see the value in my good posts and no matter how often I went through that I never learned to realize it wasn't ever going to happen. I think it finally got through in the last couple of weeks. Now I see there's no point in talking to geologists or anybody as hidebound as the EvC Gang. I'm gearing up to take the argument elsewhere. It's not easy but it can be done. People who still have a free mind. I think there are still a few out there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's like you're just being introduced to the stuff you've been arguing about for almost a decade. You're surprised that, geology shows order, that fossils show order and that turning sediments into rock takes a while. The 'conventional' paradigm is the one with a couple of hundred years of multidisciplinary evidence that all hangs together.So far you haven't even begun to understand what's involved in a 'paradigm'. It requires stacks of evidence and process and every bit of evidence needs to fit every other bit of evidence. It also has to include all the evidence. Inconvenient bits - like radiometric dating - can't be just ignored.It's normal to want to preach from the pulpit in the celebrant's echo chamber. But all you'll get there is more delusion.

quote:

---

They treat my incredibly intelligent well argued YEC paradigm unfairly.

---

Your false boasting aside, you could argue that we’re too kind. But I don’t think that’s really something you should complain about.

quote:

---

Every now and then I put together a post that is SO well done and it never gets any recognition.

---

Every time you post something really silly I could recognise it in the Humor thread. There have been a few occasions when I’ve nearly done that.

quote:

---

Yet there you were upbraiding me for refusing to recognize the good posts of my opposition. Incredible.

---

I agree that expecting you to recognise good points against your arguments - rather than ignoring them or even explicitly denying that they were ever made - is overly optimistic.

quote:

---

Nothing to do with such a post as this brief one, which actually represents a recent rethinking of things EvC: I always stupidly thought someone would see the value in my good posts and no matter how often I went through that I never learned to realize it wasn't ever going to happen.

---

Maybe you should consider the possibility that your posts are not nearly as good as you think.But sure go post on YEC sites. You can be sure that any deviation from the site orthodoxy will be ruthlessly suppressed. Even yours.

If that were really what you said then Edge would not have told you you were wrong, but you also said "and vice versa" in your Message 2044: Adding "and vice versa" makes this wrong. As Edge explained, the Cambrian includes the Tapeats, but the Tapeats does not include the Cambrian. The Tapeats spans only a portion of the Cambrian from the lower to the middle. Except it isn't a semantic disagreement, not even close. It was just you being self-evidently wrong and then arguing anyway. You can't say something as stupid as, for example, "A car encompasses a steering wheel, and vice versa," and not expect people to notice. This paragraph is equally nonsensical, and not even you believe what you just wrote. Whenever the sedimentary layers of stratigraphic columns were deposited it happened over some span of time. You believe that, we believe that. You might believe a certain strata was deposited over the period of a day some 4500 years ago, while we might believe it happened over a period of millions of years a couple hundred millions years ago, but we all believe that there was a span of time when it happened. We all believe the rock layers correspond to time periods.One point that Edge added that is probably important to stress is that not only does the Tapeats span only a portion of the Cambrian Period, it was not deposited all over the world and so can by no means encompass the Cambrian System. It's pretty clear to everyone the problem is yours. For example, you go on to say: This isn't an issue of paradigms. We're explaining the evidence of geology and fossils, and you're making up fanciful stories based on the first nine chapters of Genesis. The personal attacks almost exclusively begin with you. If you'd stick to the topic and argue the evidence then so would most everyone else, but you instead raise meta issues like about how unfair the discussion is, and how it's not about evidence but a clash of paradigms, and how your opponents' interpretation of the evidence is an illusion, and how your opponents are victims of mental cobwebs, and how you don't care about terminology, and how your opponents' views are wacky, and how you're ignoring certain people, and so forth. You jam pack most of your posts full of this nonsense and actually engage in very little discussion of the topic. It isn't that you're wrong about terminology. You are, but that's easily remedied unless you're determined to be ignorant, uncooperative, antagonistic and hostile. It's that you're just plain wrong, over and over again about things from the simple to the complex, from issues bearing directly on the topic to side issues. It is not an exaggeration to say that you rarely make it through a sentence without getting something wrong. But you never do. Here you are and here you stay while never working anything out. You can't even go to ICR or Answers in Genesis, because they don't buy your crazy version of the Flood story either.--Percy

You don't get to grade your own paper.Your "arguments" consist of endless repetition of a few ludicrous and trivially false claims based on ignoring the vast swathes of evidence that contradict your fantasy.E.G. We see precursors to future rock layers being laid down in the Sahara, the sea floor, river deltas, and many other places. We see such precursors turning into rock in drill cores. Repeating your risible claim that those processes are not happening, without any attempt to support that claim, is fruitless.Tell us WHY those examples don't count.You won't.You can't.Your claim is trivially false no matter how many times you repeat it without support. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The miscommunication was all you because in your Message 2047 you said: Even for someone who believes in the Flood there have to be rocks associated with time periods, even if it was a day 4500 years ago. You contradicted this when you said "There shouldn't be ANY rocks to identify time," and that's why Paul was questioning it since it implies that all rocks came into existence all at once and not associated with any particular time, which could only be at creation before time existed.Stop casting blame at everyone but yourself. If this discussion is a madhouse it is largely your doing, and such comments have no place in discussion anyway. Most of your posts have nothing to do with the topic, and that should stop.--Percy

You actually want me to try to explain why the Sahara, sea bottom, river deltas couldn't possibly be the explanation for even one single layer in the geological column? It's so absurdly ludicrous I can't believe anyone would ever have believed it possible in the first place, so trying to explain that to people who believe something that ludicrous is asking way too much. Scale, shape, location, all wrong. Why can't you see it? The whole Geological Timescale is beyond ludicrous, the idea of time periods in which specific flora and fauna lived based on huge flat sedimentary rocks with some dead things fossilized in them, is beyond ludicrous. How do you answer something that ludicrous? There's nothing rational one could appeal to at all. You don't "see" such things, you construct them out of the most illogical possible weirdness. Emperor's New Clothes doesn't even begin to describe the absurdity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Scale, shape, location, all wrong. Why can't you see it

---

Because it isn’t true.

quote:

---

The whole Geological Timescale is beyond ludicrous, the idea of time periods in which specific flora and fauna lived based on huge flat sedimentary rocks with some dead things fossilized in them, is beyond ludicrous.

---

Which basically says that you don’t understand the idea of studying something in detail to understand it. While simply agreeing with your opinions might be simpler it leads to believing things that really are ludicrous as you demonstrate on a near-daily basis.

Why are you here?

Thanks for the correction. Faith, did you get that? Here's the diagram again: This is Edge's version, and if you expand it by clicking on it you should have no trouble reading it because it is very big.Edge is responding to your assertion that there should have been "hills and valleys to present obstacles to hundreds of thousands of square miles of straight flat sedimentary layers." That diagram is just such an example, showing the ancestral Rockies on the right that "shed debris off into the Pennsylvanian aged seas, forming a deep trough that was an evaporite basin for a long time."Let me risk adding something with the hope that Edge will correct me if I'm wrong. If you look at the great depth of the part labeled "alluvial fan and fluvial clastics", that depth is caused by the great weight of the material shed off the ancestral Rockies. The weight caused the region to sink.--Percy

Just don't post stuff like this and then complain about how poorly you're treated, since that would make you a hypocrite. Wouldn't it be ironic if judgement day placed special emphasis on discussion board participation?--Percy

There are lots of political forums out there that appear to think our current President is incapable of error. One of those would probably welcome you if you could tie your geological musings in with Trumpism.

I nailed it.You can't support it.What is it about the scale, shape and location that is wrong?Reality isn't wrong. It just is. The Sahara could turn into another Coconino, complete with burrows and tracks. The seafloor could become another Bright Angel Shale. Every layer in the stack is the result of a process we see today and vice versa

There is no paradigm problem. There is just dishonest (or, to be fair, incredibly clueless) use of language. Faith has defined layers that are "under construction" as not part of the geological column, and layers that have acquired the definable characteristics of a layer part of the existing column. It's like defining wet paint as "not part of the wall" because it's not yet hard like the existing paint; and existing paint as unchanging, since she just got here this morning and knows nothing of the room's history. Since she'll only be in the room for 5 minutes, she will, by definition, never see paint change from wet to dry.Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.