Summations Only

You're not alone, apparently there's a large body of other nutters out there. I was listening a similar delusionals talking about the flat earth yesterday as there's a conference going on here for them. 200 other idiots. They had similar sounding fake science arguments to you, just a different topic. People can and will believe almost anything.Anyway, look, where is this science? You've had 2,000 years to develop it and 200 years since it was challenged by real science. Your lot had a massive start and you're saying that you have absolutely nothing to show us? Not one single paper? Nothing?

This is really mystifying edge. My eyes are bad but the picture shows an area with deep grooves> How is this any kind of example of a flat planar surface or a surface that could become a flat planar surface? I don't get it.And I don't get the remark about an angular unconformity either. No such things as areas with hills and valleys? What? I'm going to have to go and reread this sequence now. I have no idea what you are talking about.ABE: I did go back and see it started with whether marine transgressions would produce such flat horizontal layers as seen in the geo/strat columns. I said they wouldn't be as flat and horizontal.And now you are giving this picture of a deeply grooved terrain with hills and valleys that is anything but flat that's supposed to show me I'm wrong? It's also very very far from covering the vast territory so many of the strata do. I am really really befuddled and mystified. /ABE.In a later post you explain the point of the picture: But that is not a picture of flat planar features. Plus there is no hint whatever of how it might related to the geological record.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This attempt to prove the Flood is not old at all. A matter of decades. And yes it was in response to science's attack on God. But we're all aiming for a scientific dethroning of the whole evolutionary thing.There are probably published papers but I'd have to go looking for them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's at least 2 centuries old. Garbage. But that aside, you have nothing to show for at least 2 decades of work? Nothing? But you have nothing at all to do it with and never will have. Meanwhile real science work continues and simply piles on more confirmatory evidence. If there's an error somewhere science will find it, not people like you with no education, training or practical experience sitting at your PC making shit up.

I guess there's no point in repeating how I see it, is there? Oh well. The historical sciences are all unprovable mental conjuring. Their claims can't be tested or replicated. So they've got a whole complex edifice built only out of imagination, and if you really carefully examine it you can see it doesn't hold together. Eventually it will collapse but I guess it's going to take a while.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is really about as stupid a comment as it is possible to make and a common idiocy in the Christian Cult of Ignorance.Change leaves evidence.PERIOD!Change leaves evidence!Past changes left evidence!Period.Evidence of change exists!Period.You fools may refuse to understand but reality still exists.Had the Biblical Flood happened there would be evidence yet NO such evidence exists.Had Special Creation happened then there would be evidence yet no such evidence exists.You can continue to remain ignorant or attempt to actually learn from all those here who have been praying for your enlightenment for over a decade.

Has it occurred to you that there might been too many organisms in the fossil record to be explained by the fludde? Your scenario may require more life at one time than would fit on the planet? Shells and the Biomass of Earth: A serious problem for young earth creationists: Then what did it? Oh, you have no answer, right? Physics and chemistry, of which we know a lot, couldn't. What else is there? Standard Faith meaningless noise. I told you that insulting the mainstream interpretation is fruitless.Of course, you have no evidence or argument against the mainstream interpretation, so insults are all you have.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Name some and link to their work.All I've ever seen are pitiful attempts at apologetics.

Ah, IOW there are not lots of YECs investigating the fludde from the physical evidence. Glad you cleared that up.

Centuries.

Nope, you're just changing the subject again. I was asking for your science. You are admitting that you have none, despite decades of trying. If it was going to collapse it would have done it 50 years ago when molecular genetics came along or when radiometric dating became prevelant or when cosmological knowledge was developing. Instead, all these things - and more - added to the mass of knowledge from other disciplines confirming their conclusions. This didn't need to be so, but it was.It's not going to take a while, it's not going to happen. This is confirmed by your side's total inability to produce ant scientific evidence at all.

Unfortunately, I thought you understood how flat surfaces form in marine deposition and I was trying to show how a flat surface would form in transition from a terrestrial setting, to a marine setting. In this case the land gets planed off by waves and then the flat marine sediment would be deposited on top. As the sea moves across the continent, this process moves along also creating a regional unconformity that is essentially flat.The bonus was that the sedimentary bedding planes are standing on end so that when the new sediments are deposited on top of them you would get an angular unconformity. In the distant future.Sorry that, I placed too many ideas into one image. It was too good to pass up.
Someday, this location will look like Siccar Point if the sea continues to rise. Well, maybe someone else is interested ....

Well, thanks for trying but I still can't see how you'd get a flat horizontal rock like those in the geo/strat column from that landscape.

PaulK and NoNukes have already responded, and I will also in a moment, but first I'd like to point out that you long ago lost the right to accuse anyone of dismissing your arguments. In this thread alone of my last 80 posts to you you've only responded to 15, and 5 were brief two or three line messages, so you only really responded substantively to 10, or 12.5%. Someone who dismisses or ignores so many messages has lost their right to complain.You also posted explicitly dismissive messages on two occasions, saying, "I think so much of what you say really isn't worth thinking about," and "Your attitude makes me even less interested in trying to deal with anything you post."So stop playing the hypocrite. When you begin replying to all the arguments people make then you'll have earned the right to register a protest when someone ignores an argument of yours.But now to address the specifics of your complaint: What gaping fracture in your thinking leads you to believe your own assessments of your ideas are the ones with genuine value. I'm sure we're all brilliant in our own minds, but a true finding of brilliance is conferred by others, not by oneself. That you actually believe your own opinion of your ideas is what counts explains a lot of your delusional stubbornness and determined ignorance. I did not dismiss your argument. Your argument was nonsense but I was polite enough not to say so, providing only enough rebuttal to allow any intelligent person to recognize its flagrant flaw.And unlike you I am willing to explain as many times as necessary to achieve understanding, though with you the number appears to be exceedingly large, made larger by the huge number of posts you completely ignore. But nonetheless, whenever you'd like me to explain again you need only ask. Nothing of trilobite genetics is known. As I pointed out, by your argument humans and chimpanzees are the same species. Foxes and wolves are the same species. Elk and deer are the same species. Alligators and crocodiles are the same species. All lizards are the same species. All salamanders are the same species. All fish are the same species.This should be enough for you to recognize that your argument is absurd, but what you will do, indeed what after reading ahead a little bit I see you have already done, is take this absurd argument, blindly reject all evidence and reason, and just dig in. This is because what you believe is not driven by evidence or rational thinking but by what you said back in Message 2439: "The one thing I know is true is that the Biblical worldwide Flood did occur about 4500 years ago. Everything else has to be subordinated to that."I did scan the Wikipedia entry on trilobites before posting my previous reply, and that mentioned something about trilobite eyes that made me curious. Looking it up just now I found The Trilobite Eye webpage over at the Trilobite Info website. Did you know that some trilobites had regular eyes, most had compound eyes, and some had no eyes at all? Do you really believe creatures with such different eyes could all be the same species?--Percy

That and they ranged in size from ~2mm to over 700mm. Hard to believe they they could all be the same species with that variation in size.