Summations Only

Are you just unable to entertain my completely different point of view or are you refusing? Because having to keep answering this sort of total adherence to the status quo point of view is depressing in the extreme and makes me feel Why bother? Are you unable to picture the great slabs of rock that make up the geologic column, or if you prefer, any given stratigraphic column? The sandstone or the mudstone or the limestone etc? Can you not see them in your mind extending far and wide across the land flat as a pancake, which show up in the core samples among all the other vast slabs of rock? Can you not envision them as originally a vast expanse of flat wet sediment on which nothing in a particular "time period" could have lived? Do you really believe your pictures of "flat" fields could ever become a flat single-sediment rock from any depth of burial? Really? Flat as the rock with the archaeopteryx in it? Really? The depth might lithify it, but not flatten it and not turn it into a single sediment from the mixed soils and sediments that exist on any landscape.You want evidence. Wow. All I can do is try to make you see what is really there, that's the only evidence. You really have no evidence at all Percy. The fossils? They are better evidence for the Flood. The Geologic Timescale is the Emperor's New Clothes. I realize I have the advantage of being outside the charmed circle of what you all like to call Science, so I can see stuff you can't see, but I would think that by now it would at least be a little bit familiar.Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually, it's a lot more than that. You should count all of the oceanic crust that was formed from the beginning of the fludde. A lot of older oceanic crust has been subducted or obducted onto the continents.

A bunch of numbers that as far as I can tell have no necessary relation to anything real that can be pictured. Just a lot of mystification. I see mid ocean ridges which look like tiny threads of heat beneath a gigantic volume of cold water, like trying to heat ten thousand gallons of water with a candle, and volcanoes, even many of them, as tiny little anthills beneath that same volume, just so many more candles in relation to the enormous amount of water, and I can figure in friction from the movement of the continents, but except for the beginning jolt the friction should give way to the momentum, and the volume of the cold ocean water continues to impress me, as does the idea that any degree of increased heat would bring on the ice of the ice age. All those "joules" are really quite meaningless. Oh I'm probably way underestimating, but the point is that there is nothing to take seriously in the speculations of people who reject the Flood for starters.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, you admit that personal incredulity is you only argument?The point of the exercise was to show that your request for calculations was insincere.But you aren't looking at it the right way. Look at it as heat being tranferred from the mantle to the ocean waters. Now, look at all of the mantle material that has cooled to form the crust in the present ocean basins along with the the less obvious parts of the oceanic crust and mantle that are plastered onto the continents.All of that heat released in one year is simply astounding. And the ocean is not enough of a heat sink to eliminate that heat in one year.

What Faith fails to understand is that those meaningless joules are actually reality while the Biblical Flood is a plot device created by ignorant writers.

To my incredulity you answer with your credulity. "All of that heat released in one year is simply astounding."I wasn't insincere, I really wanted to see some calculations I could follow. Maybe there aren't any.See if you can find anything, some homely analogy perhaps, like my ten thousand gallon pot over a candle.abe: Take your time, I'm going to go make some dinner and then watch the second season of "Unforgotten."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You may have to meet him halfway. No matter what number he provides, and no matter the order of magnitude of Joules, calories, electron volts, etc., ultimately you have to make some sense out of them which will require some attempt to grasp scientific concepts. If you are not going to do that, because of either lack of ability, or lack of interest, don't ask people to waste their time. The fact that you don't understand something does not make it wrong. That would be stupid.

But this is one of those accusations that comes up against the Flood all the time. If they can't make it make sense they shouldn't bring it up. They don't get to call themselves right without proving it. Just saying the heat released was "simply astounding" doesn't cut it. I really did hope to get at least a ballpark idea of how they get to their view, but maybe it's not possible. But of course we can just drop the subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And you don't get to declare them wrong just because you don't understand it.

Sure I do.

The fact that you can't cope with facts and science doesn't make scientists wrong."You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them think."

OK I can't call them wrong but they don't get to be right without being able to make it make sense to a nonscientist.

sometimes non-scientists are just idiots, fuck em.

I was attempting to point out to Faith that the crushing force that causes lithification is not the only force acting on the surface of a sedimentary deposit during its formation or in subsequent years. A nice sediment filled swamp, for example, might be covered by a mudslide or pyroclastic flow that would remove surface features, or might later have the layers above it scoured off and be abraded smooth by a glacier before subsequently being covered again.As near as I can tell, she envisions something or other gently fluttering down on top of a sediment, preserving every hummock and puddle and blade of grass. Her view on this is as detached from reality as her vision of rodents scampering on a beach-like surface as the gentle waves of the worst storm in earth's history tear the surface from what she herself describes as a lushly enfoliated earth.I'd suggest she google some photos of both storm surf and the aftermath of a tsunami in a treed area if she thinks raindrops and the imprints of little mouse toes would somehow be preserved in the smooth, virgin sands of a beach between the comings and goings of gently lapping waves, but of course that would be a waste of time.Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typos

...he said without a hint of irony, frustration, or sarcasm.