Summations Only

You all stop, I stop. When the main arguments I get are insults or personal comments, you're all going to get them back at you.And here comes another one: I don't call assertions evidence, I know the difference, apparently you do not. My assertions, however, are informed and logical and based on the evidence, starting with the fossils, the strata, the evidence of water wreckage of the planet.And another, a typical insinuation: You have no ability to judge critical thinking. And I don't "flee" from anything that needs to be addressed, I ignore the barrage of undigested challenges/accusations that are constantly being thrown at me. Ultimately, now that I know it can happen rapidly and that the ingredients for it to occur would have been abundant in the newly laid strata, but it's the time factor that matters here. Others have contributed to the discussion showing it may not be necessary in some kinds of rock. But why does it matter? Compaction or consolidation is enough for most of the purposes that have come up here, about the stability of the strata soon after the Flood. Again, it's the time factor that matters, not the chemical condition of the rocks. Some of it was no doubt rapidly lithified, some may not have been. The chemical means would have been available in abundance, however, in the water that would have copiously trickled through the newly laid strata. I hope someone will do the test HBD proposed, or find the information such a test would produce. I'm sure it doesn't "look like" anything to do with millions of years, that's just your dogma talking, but yes, water and weathering and all sorts of processes, only as I see it it's a lot of water that would have cut the foreground landscape down to its uppermost level in the foreground, the level I outlined in yellow. I'd attribute the yellow outlined level to the receding Flood water's washing over the whole area in the foreground, scouring off whatever layer that was but leaving higher levels intact in the background. But I'd also figure that's the layer where the meandering began and started cutting down through it, decreasing in volume and cutting more deeply after it had receded to the level of the orange outline. Perhaps it began at a higher level, but the yellow level is the uppermost in the foreground. Only the uppermost yellow level might be pre 7, being washed across by receding Flood waters, the deeper levels would all be stages of 7, and generally described in 8. Some of my numbers are location-specific but occurring at the same stage.

I'm generally quite happy with my record on this thread. Those who are capable of thinking clearly will recognize the cogency of my arguments, the rest of you will be hampered by the usual theory-induced brain cramp but I can't help that.Sorry if I wrote a whole paragraph without an ABE, I am usually careful about that.

If lithification was necessary to its stability then it was lithified. No doubt due to the chemicals trickling down.

I don't call imagination evidence, Mr. Stupid. It's not MY failure to imagine the Flood anyway, Mr. Stupid.

YOU may have seen reports of false readings, but they do not get reported to creationists.The tests you apply to radiometric dating cannot be verified because there is nothing in the past itself to verify them. It all remains theory/hypothesis/conjecture/imagination from beginning to end because of the basic facts of the situation you are dealing with. Really too bad you can't grasp this basic fact.I'm not accusing you of fraud, but of theory-bound bias, there's a difference.

Principles. I get the idea but I'm not sure I'm convinced yet.

Then it lithified very rapidly. Who cares, it was stable right after the Flood.

Oh I read them. You think you have substantiation which you don't have, neither the ToE nor the OE are "theory" by either of your definitions because all you have IS "theory" in the colloquial sense, or "hypothesis" or just plain old mental constructions.The definitions of "proof" are just the usual pedantic nitpicking attempt to distract from the fact that REAL science DOES have "proof" in a sense that the pseudosciences of the ancient past do not and can't have. That is, REAL SCIENCE is based on repeatable facts that can be observed by many others.

The meander shape did NOT form pre step 7, it formed AT step 7.Sure I make assertions. I don't confuse them with the evidence. And they are logical. Take it or leave it. Whether the rocks were lithified or not is irrelevant.

This post of yours just demonstrates your utter failure to understand anything about this subject. Everything I've said is possible and makes sense. As usual you seem to be incapable of recognizing that "floods" on a local scale have nothing to say about a worldwide Flood. Failure of scientific imagination as usual.What absolute nonsense about THE Flood anyway. OCEAN WATER TRANSPORTS SEDIMENTS, nobody said anything about transporting "layers." THE Flood could very well have dropped sediments over thousands of miles. You have a head full of crazy ideas of your own that have nothing to do with anything I've said. Experiments have shown this occurs. Berthault. But if you refuse to accept that, the response to you is that there is NO way TIME PERIODS sort specific sediments to characterize their supposed eras for sure, whereas we KNOW that water moves sediments. When you get down to it most of the layers are explained as having been formed in water anyway but you all ignore the implications of that fact. I didn't say they did but that's something to think about. Of course not. The evolutionary and geologic eras are an illusion, a really weird illusion you'd think anyone with half a brain could see was nuts, imputing time periods to sedimentary rocks.And again, "FLOODS" don't do anything remotely like what THE Flood would have done. "Floods" don't do anything, THE Flood did however transport the ingredients, that is the organic matter, that CREATED such deposits by compression under tons of sediments, and then principles of physics collected the result in recognizable formations. This has been answered so many times by now it has become a bald faced lie. Nobody has said the Flood itself created the meanders of the rivers; those were created on flat exposed layers after the Flood waters had settled down leaving rivers, I'm beginning to think you have lost your mind altogether. No such thing as "meandering cracks" has been mentioned. You make it all up yourself out of thin air, demonstrating your failure of scientific imagination at the same time. Tectonic forces made the cliffs and canyons of the Grand Staircase, and would have made that sort of crack in the same levels of strata over the Grand Canyon OVER A MILE ABOVE THE CURRENT LEVEL OF THE GC TOO. But I'm sure you can't grasp such a concept. Erosion cuts gullies.
And I thought it was YOU who attributed the slope retreat to erosion.
Mud dries, clay dries.Your blatant misrepresentation of my posts really doesn't deserve any more consideration but MAYBE I'll be back later to answer the rest of your nonsense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it's a result of unconsciously emphasizing the positive, not intentional fraud.And when I said it's withheld from creationists I meant in discussions like these. It's always presented as a FACT. It is NOT a fact.

I'm not in the business of setting examples. As I said, you stop, I stop.

Those who DO overcome their bias become creationists and lose their standing in the scientific community.No, scientists are not trained to suspect the Theory of Evolution or the Old Earth, sorry, there is nothing but affirmation of those theories and ridicule of objectors to them. The bias against creationism is way too strong.An odd thing is that I used to have lots of scientist friends, some great discussions too. When I started to become a Christian one of my physicist friends gave me a book about Gnosticism to get me off my Biblical track. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Like I said, I knew you didn't have a clue what I was saying about fact versus interpretation, or about your definitional brain cramp concerning theory and proof. Too bad, it's the key to the whole mess.

You're SO cute.I lost most of my "friends" when I became a Christian, their doing not mine. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.