Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

But science works. The explanations can be used to make predictions and lead to new discoveries. Things do end up behaving in the ways that they seem to scientists, even behaviors that occurred in the distant past but are only discovered these days.If they were all terribly wrong then that couldn't happen.

Old Earthism and Evolution work just as well and the same as the rest of science.

Not really, I'm talking about the stuff that works. I don't care if you call it science or not. Okay, so what works instead? But you don't even really understand it, which was proved by your wholly inaccurate caracature. But you don't even have the knowledge to grasp what you're actually looking at, which was proved by the drawings you made. But I know this isn't true, because some of the explanations work and others don't. The ones from what I'm calling the scientific side can provide examples and reasoning, in the form of objective evidence, for why their explanation works.Do you think that you have also done that?

Okay, I drop my claims of your misunderstandings, and I'll assume that you do understand it, can you now answer my questions:

quote:

---

And this is exactly what I keep objecting to as ridiculous, the whole idea of imputing long eras of time to slabs of different kinds of rock.

​

Okay, so what works instead?

---

quote:

---

There is no evidence on either side, you are persuaded of either one or the other by your own subjective judgment.

​

But I know this isn't true, because some of the explanations work and others don't. The ones from what I'm calling the scientific side can provide examples and reasoning, in the form of objective evidence, for why their explanation works.

​

Do you think that you have also done that?

---

Staight from the wiki page on consilience:

quote:

---

In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence are very strong on their own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.

​

The principle is based on the unity of knowledge; measuring the same result by several different methods should lead to the same answer. For example, it should not matter whether one measures the distance between the Great Pyramids of Giza by laser rangefinding, by satellite imaging, or with a meter stick - in all three cases, the answer should be approximately the same. For the same reason, different dating methods in geochronology should concur, a result in chemistry should not contradict a result in geology, etc.

---

In all the years we've been here I don't recall you ever addressing the consilience of data for an old earth.The only YEC explanation that I'm aware of is that God has to be tricking us all into thinking the earth is old, e.g. omphalism.

That's just because you can't believe that there is consilience of the data, or else your whole fantasy falls apart.In reality, there is consilience. Its easily found and easily demonstrable. It is objective quantified measurements, there's no subjective interpretation at all.You've been shown this over and over again but you just can't allow yourself to "believe" it. So really, there's no point in me trying to show it to you.

Here's what she said in Message 889, in response to me pointing out the consilience of the data:

quote:

---

I don't believe there is any consilience of data, it's all subjective interpretation. Of COURSE it all fits together. Sort of.

---

By "coincidence", she means that scientists have set up the consilience through their subjective interpretations and that it isn't actually real to begin with.

Its the Dunning-Kruger effect in full swing:

quote:

---

The Dunning—Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

---

Its because you've said that certain sedimentary layers could not have formed through sedimentation because they are not horizontal enough.That makes people question how horizontal you think something has to be before you could accept that it was the result of sedimentation.You have yet to tell us.

You're assuming it was just one event when they could have been separate events.The layer could have "sagged" while it was being deposited and then later after it solidified the circled parts broke off.