Summations Only

Thank you. Can you please remember that.

Well that's got me. If the rocks are organised young to old - which you have just accepted - the organisms found within them MUST also go from young to old.

I just did. For an organism to appear in a rock it must have lived at the time the rock was layed down. The strawberry can't be found with the Kiwi fruit.

I just proved it. To be in the rock, they had to be there at the time the rock was formed. It can not be any other way can it?

That's just silly. The rock was not rock when the creatures lived on it, it was exactly as it is today; dirt, sand, sediment etc etc. Enormous areas of it.

Of course it's about the bloody flood. Geology explains the strata, the fossils and the timescales and shows why none of it can be explained by a flood 4,500 years ago. You have to explain how the flood can build the observed order in the geology and you can't do it. Avoiding it does not make your problem go away.

I can't prove this to you that's true, but to all other sentient lifeforms it's blindingly bloody obvious, for many reasons that have been explained to you over and over not excluding the obvious one which is that we see the process happening today.

Organisms live on and above the sediment - sea bottom, soil, beach, desert - the die on it and some get buried by more sediment and are preserved. We see it today. Have you never wondered why archaeologists have to dig? Their sites are even called digs. It's because everything on the land gets buried with time.

In the UK we have a lot of Roman remains - mostly buried. It didn't happen because we dumped a pile of earth on them, it accumulates naturally. In my back garden the path is now 2 inches lower than the earth it was laid on. If I left it it would be buried in another 10 years.

The current time period is labelled the Halocene and started just 11,500 years ago when humans first started one of the earth's great extinction events. Bless us. How big an area do you think the Halocene covers? That's correct, it covers the entire earth. In fact the view is that it ought to be called the Anthropocene epoc because we need to find a rock signature that would identify it in 100,000 years time. One idea is the radioactivity created by the first atomic bombs. Just like the rocks in different epochs, it won't be at the same level everywhere and in some places it won't be detectable at all, but in all the places it will be in the same time period shown in the rocks. It is part of the stratigraphic column being built right now ontop of the earth and sea bed.

The rock wasn't there at all. IT WAS EARTH. Soil, exactly like today. The dinosaur's soil sat ontop of earlier rock. It became rock thousands of years later along with everything that died there. Just like it is happening today.

There is no other way it could possibly have been could it?

…yes…

You were doing so well, then thud, you walked right into your self-erected wall of delusion. They died in that period, where buried in that period and some were fossilised in that period that's why they turn up in the rocks of that period. There is no other way the organisms could get into the rock, other than be there when the rock was forming. Except by magic.

The kiwi fruit can't get into the strawberry layer unless your mother cheats and pushes one through from the layer above. In which case you'd see the evidence of that. Just like we do in the rock when volcanoes erupt through it.

…yes…

Thud. You've had the process of rock formation explained to you endless times.

Thud. Look out of your window.

Look out of your window. If you're in a city, drive out of it and look around.

Jesus Christ Faith, it's called the ROCK CYCLE ffs! How long have you pretended to know about geology yet don't understand the first friggin' thing about it? I mean, really this is just sodding silly.

quote:

---

Over time, soil layers are buried by new layers of sediment and eventually lithify to form sedimentary rock. The rock cycle continues as the sedimentary rocks are again brought in contact with the surface to weather and transform into new soil and other sedimentary rocks, or continue to be covered with newer sediments until they are buried deep in the crust where they may transform into new metamorphic or igneous rocks. The rock cycle is far slower in some places than it is in others, but it will not end as long as Earth is geologically active and has an atmosphere.

---

https://www.hunker.com/...-does-soil-fit-into-the-rock-cycle

Utter bullshit.

This is what flood evidence looks like. It's thought to be the largest flood event in the last 10,000 years and it's in China at around 1920 BC. Just a few hundred years after your mythical flood.

https://www.aaas.org/...vidence-chinas-great-flood-uncovered

You'll also see in the image that the Chinese had an entire dynasty in place only 200 years after the flood. How was that possible?

What you mean is that you made up some unevidenced nonsense that everyone called you out on.

Hopeless. What we would see is what we would expect to see. We expect to see it because that's what we see when near exinction event happen. We see it in the genomes of those creatures. The fact that we don't see it in all organisms disproves your fantasies.

This is certainly part of the problem, she has no qualifications in anything and no experience at all in any form of science work. I think she thinks that scientists do what she does; make up ad hoc solutions to problems then move onto the next one.

She has literally no idea how many years of effort it would take to construct an objective, evidence based research paper to attempt to validate just one of her claims. I think she’d be quite shocked by the rigor involved - particularly if the idea is in anyway controversial.

I'm not attacking you, I'm attempting to explain why you are incapable of objective analysis.

Reading books and so on, is fine but it gives you no idea of the work underpinning the words therein. You also don't understand what is written, which is why you say the absurd things you say. Please note that I'm not saying that you disagree with what's written - of course you do - but you actually don't know or understand the concepts you're criticising.

And, of course, you have absolutely no formal training at any level in the things you're discussing so you can't possibly have a clue about them.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.