quote: Completely different sediments, straight and flat and all neatly stacked up for miles. For starters.
And why exactly do you consider that odd ? Minus the exaggeration, it seems to be what weâ€™d expect given hundreds of millions of years.
It would certainly be odd if you assumed that the Flood did it, but we donâ€™t
Start with the sequences associated with transgression and regression. Donâ€™t we see exactly what we should expect if the sea level slowly rose and fell ? If not, why not ?
quote: Totally lost me. All I want is another term for "******" and a comment on whether anybody ******4 the geological column stack of sediments is an unlikely fit with the time periods interpretation.
If you think so, you are going to have to explain why.
quote: I was using the term "uniform" to refer to the regularity of the form of the strata as straight flat slabs of separate sedimentary content. Nothing to do with rock as such or its composition or texture etc.
Except that they often arenâ€™t straight or flat.
quote: Not getting your point. Steno's law refers to original horizontality and that's apparent everywhere there are strata in whatever condition they happen to be.
Well, it refers to how sediment is deposited. Now if you want to explain why itâ€™s odd that the laws of physics applied in the distant past go right ahead. The rest of us donâ€™t think itâ€™s odd at all.
My agenda comes from the Bible as it is taught by most Protestant evangelicals.
It doesn't matter whether you dreamed everything up yourself or you got it from others. The simple fact still remains that it is your own fallible human interpretation (virtually guaranteed to be wrong by its very nature) that you are following, not the Bible itself.
And again, what do you think would happen if your own fallible human interpretation (virtually guaranteed to be wrong by its very nature) were to prove to be wrong?
I have zip knowledge about or interest in the legal situation.
Nor would we expect that of you, but nonetheless you should know where your nonsense came from and why you feel compelled to apply a particular approach.
YEC screams out for God to have magicked everything into place, because the evidence is all against it. Yet you feel constrained to explain everything "scientifically" (despite you having no idea what that means, let alone having any knowledge of science). Why would that be? You can never succeed, since the evidence is all against you.
Yet if you were to employ magick, your god's stock in trade, you could sweep all that difficult evidence aside with ease. Why don't you do that? Why do you feel constrained to "put the Bible aside"?
The reason is the manner in which "creation science" works, but was set by its origin as a deliberate legalistic deception. Although intended to deliberately deceive the courts and the general public, fundamentalists decided that it was also good for deceiving themselves. That's where you come in. You have been deceived by your own people. Shouldn't you at least try to understand how?
Working backward through your posts. Who knows how far I'll get though.
Yeah but I've already dealt with all that in the past...
This is untrue.
No it's not untrue. The dino nests, the footprints, the raindrops, burrows, etc. I'm not sure if that's all on the list: I hypothesized that they occurred during a phase of the rising water when waves and tides came in and went out, leaving sllck wet sediments as they went out. Some creatures were still alive and their footprints and burrows got impressed in the wet sedment which were then preserved when the next wave deposited a new load of sediment on top of them. Same with the raindrops, which I particularly enjoy thlnking about because rain was the initiator of the Flood. The sediment must have had some time to dry a bit while the water was out, so the impressions weren't blurred or erased. The dino nests would have floated, been deposited on the wet sediment, then covered by the next wave.
Yes I did discuss all this at some length as I recall.
ABE: It's actually not as easy to explain all this on the time periods explanation of millions of years' accumulation of sediments.
I'm criticized for proposing ad hoc explanations. But of course I do, there is nothing else I can do in this situation. But it's also true that all the explanations given in the historical sciences are little more than ad hoc as well. Just made up stuff that got accepted and elaborated which gives it all a status that has no serious scientific basis to it.