Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
Yes, so somehow the information hasn't been useful for my purposes so far.. ... Surely you know I'm not going to take comments that deny the Flood seriously, ...
Your purpose being to create a false narrative rather than determine the reality evidenced around us.
That means you have to ignore contrary evidence to support your delusion.
The amount of delusion depends on the degree of denial of evidence of reality.
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
My purpose being to show how there's a better interpretation than the standard interpretation, which is usually the case when I can see the whole situation as it really is without the standard interpretation interfering.
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the detail never shown tha
quote:My purpose being to show how there's a better interpretation than the standard interpretation, which is usually the case when I can see the whole situation as it really is without the standard interpretation interfering.
Then why do you so often use arguments which rely on seeing very little of the situation? And why are so many of your claims untrue?
Name one case where genuinely seeing the whole situation shows that your Flood geology better fits the evidence than mainstream geology.
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
My purpose being to show how there's a better interpretation than the standard interpretation, ...
Which you attempt to do by ignoring contrary evidence and/or misrepresenting what the evidence shows.
... which is usually the case when I can see the whole situation as it really is without the standard interpretation interfering.
It's not the "standard interpretation" that interferes, it is the detailed evidence (that the "standard interpretation" is built on), that interferes.
For instance, I showed you evidence of large inland sea inundations to show you that the Grand Imaginary Flood (GIF) was inaccurate in explaining the evidence. Such as mature shoreline and ecology.
First you said it occurred during a regression of the GIF.
When that was invalidated you said it occurred during a transgression of the GIF.
When that was invalidated you said it had occurred before the GIF.
Which is invalidated by the absence of sediment you claim occurs due to the GIF.
These are each instances where the evidence the "standard interpretation" is built on (and explains) interferes with your vision/s.
It's the details Faith. The details will always interfere with your made up concepts.
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
Faith writes:
My problem with all this is that I really have no idea what you are talking about or why, what it has to do with the Flood or anything related. Thanks for answering my questions but I end up with a big "so what?"
Refusing to understand what people say or see what people show you, and then ignoring it, could lead to making the same wrong arguments over and over.
What you don't know *can* hurt you. I'm reminded of a Life in These United States item in Reader's Digest from a half century ago. A policeman pulled over a young lady. She'd been driving carefully and didn't understand why she'd been pulled over. The policeman asked to see her license and registration. Looking at her license he said, "It says here that you wear glasses."
"Yes, it does, but I don't really need them."
"Can you read that sign for me?"
She strained, could but not make it out. "Uh, I'm sorry, no. I guess I do need my glasses."
"Why don't you put those glasses on and then try reading that sign again."
"Okay," she answered, putting on the glasses. "'Road Ends 500 Feet.' Oh no!"
"You wear your glasses when driving from now on, okay miss," he said, handing her back her license and registration. "Have a nice day."
If we can't see what we're looking at or what's being explained then we won't learn anything and we'll be doomed to making the same wrong arguments over and over again.
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
quote:Refusing to understand what people say or see what people show you, and then ignoring it, could lead to making the same wrong arguments over and over.
It already has. Faith has already repeated her insanity about the surface returning to stone, to name only the most extreme example (and it isn’t the only example in this thread).
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
And we see that happening everyday. Surfaces get buried gradually under newer deposits as higher place get weathered and eroded and all that moves to lower levels.
But it takes time Faith, millions and millions of years. Reality shows us that Young Earth and any silly Biblical Floods are simply impossible.
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
"Surfaces" that are deep and flat and often of one single sediment containing specific collections of fossils, that extend for thousands of square miles do NOT get slowly buried every day. Good grief.
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
Your assertion is just a diversion. The fact is that mainstream geology does not state that the surface turns to stone instead stating that lithification requires deep burial. And you have no excuse for not knowing that.
If you are going to use idiotic falsehoods that is your problem. You ought to be honest with yourself and admit to it. That you won’t only shows how deep the problem runs.
You can't get to the geo column from a "time period" landscape by any means whatever
Your deep burial scenario is impossible, that's the point. You have to end up with the geological column and that won't accomplish that, nor will any scenario you could dream up. Interesting of course how all you do is attack me personally. You can't make any scenario work so you attack me.
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
quote:Your deep burial scenario is impossible, that's the point.
Obviously untrue. If that was the point you would be arguing against it instead of repeating a silly strawman.
quote:You have to end up with the geological column and that won't accomplish that, nor will any scenario you could dream up.
Your Flood certainly won’t do it. And your use of a strawman hardly suggests that you have much of a case against the actual mainstream view. Again, the fact that we find actual surface features in the geological record - including features which take considerable time to develop - shows that the mainstream view is far closer to the truth than anything you’ve offered.
quote:Interesting of course how all you do is attack me personally. Yo
You chose to answer a post which pointed out that your refusal to Learn was causing trouble. And your reply was an evasion. Dishonestly trying to cover up your faults is not a sensible strategy here - yet here you are doubling down on it.
quote:You can't make any scenario work so you attack me.
I don’t have to make your strawman scenario work. All I have to do is point out that it is a ridiculous strawman. You don’t have to dishonestly rep,y to side comments, yet here you are whining that you were caught dishonestly replying to a side comment.
I - and others even more - have produced quite a lot of substantive posts. If you want to avoid criticism then stop bringing it upon yourself. Answer the substantive points honestly - with intellectual honest as well as the more normal sort. Don’t repeat idiotic nonsense you made up.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
