Summations Only

You are a genius at twisting what I say. I stand in awe.

Of course I didn’t twist your words at all. I simply pointed out a truth you didn’t like.In reality wolves are still wolves. Rock doves are still rock doves. The diversification produced by selective breeding did not occur in nature. Even though those species have existed for far longer than the human breeding programs. You have no example of such a thing happening in nature, no reason to think that the circumstances that would be required could occur in such profusion.In reality you have no information that would let you know that the variations seen in trilobites were all present in the original genome. You don’t even know that for dogs or pigeons. That’s just an assumption without evidence - and almost certainly false.

One thing is, that limestone volumes are huge (and as I said, much made up of fossil remains, be they intact or reduced to sand, silt, and mud). Bringing in all those fossils from elsewhere (which I don't buy) only moves the "time required to grow all those clam shells etc." to a different location. Different place, same problem.More significantly(?), it can be recognized that at least much of that life (as fossils) were growing where they were found. Probably the most extreme example is huge reef structures that were not constructed by material brought in from elsewhere. Another thing is that many of the critters found as fossils are clearly too fragile to have been moved much if at all from their place of life. I present a giant crinoid (more can be found by googling "crinoid fossils"): The crinoid stem is broken in a few places, but it is remarkably intact. And indeed, much non-intact crinoid stem fragments can be found. Fixed. Those nested quote boxes can get messy if you're not real careful.To all (esp. Percy) - There is at least one other message I know of, that I intend to reply to. But if there is a message that you feel calls for my response, please personal/private message me about it. This especially if the message was NOT a direct reply to one of mine. Messages are piling up so fast, it is hard to keep track of what I'd like to reply to.Moose

You are ignoring the point. Again.The people that did the early work on geology believed what you believe. They set out to prove young earth and flood but found that the evidence denied it. And of course everything discovered since confirms that early finding.What you describe above is called motivated thinking, if the only way the evidence makes sense is if you believe something, then you are selectively thinking. You're force-fitting the facts to the belief by cherry picking, ad-hocing and ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your belief. Like you, the early worker's motivated thinking was about proving the ideas in the bible. They wanted it to be true but the facts eventually ovewhelmed them.Science takes ALL the facts and forms a cohesive theory around them. Its motivated thinking is to find the theory of best fit that uses ALL the facts. If the evidence pointed to a young earth, science would follow that path simply because it has to, it can't do anything else - it's built to do it that way. It can be wrong - but it's self-correcting, because it uses all the facts. Science didn't set out to show that the bible was not literally true, it has no motivation to do that, in fact scientists have the same motivation to find this God of yours as you do, but the evidence is against it.This is why you fail. In order to hang on to your belief you are forced to ignore facts that don't fit - dating methods, genetics, order in rocks and fossils, no global flood zone in geology, no rabbit in the Cambrian, no genetic bottleneck etc etc. Your belief prevents you fully considering evidence that contradicts your belief.There is literally nothing that can change your mind is there?

Really? So why could we not see this feature (a wave-cut bench) on a large scale as the sea transgresses across the continent? In fact, if sediments were deposited on top of this particular bench, would we not get an angular unconformity? It would not be surprising to miss such a question in the blizzard of posts that can appear here daily.It's pretty clear that there are numerous valleys and hills within the Lower Peninsula sedimentary rocks as the diagram shows. And yet you have the nerve to tell us that there are no such things. Since you are so clever, I thought you would see it without explanation.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Early geologists didn't believe what I believe. Just a few came close but that's all. They had some pretty weird ideas about fossils for instance. And it's true, nothing can change my mind because over time I've become more and more convinced of the Flood as explaining the geologic column, though details may change. The more I see of the objections the more I'm convinced of the basic outlines of the Flood. The facts that have to be put aside for now will eventually be explained and incorporated into the Flood model I have no doubt.

I realized later you were talking about transgressions, I suppose the Sauk Sea and all that? In that case I suppose they account for the stratigraphic/geologic column strata, but they have to be interpreted as phases of the Flood.I don't know what the picture is supposed to demonstrate, don't get the point about "numerous valleys and hills within the Lower Peninsula sedimentary rocks as the diagram shows," no idea what you think it proves against anything I've said. What does it have to do with the geologic column?Look, I hate being in this position of contradicting an expert geologist, which I know you are. But bad as I feel about it I'm convinced of the Flood explanation for a lot of the stuff you explain by the Old Earth system and I can't help being at odds with you. I don't have any illusions that I know a ten-thousandth of what a geologist knows, but I am convinced that what I do know is enough to make a good case for the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, nobody believes what you believe.In fact, I'm pretty sure that you have no idea what you believe. That's a comforting thought. A sure sign of religious dogma. Embraced by one person, of course. Fortunately.

No.They could be interpreted as marine transgressions. Especially when you consider that is what they are called. It is to do what I suggested. Show how flat planar features can be formed in the geological record.And no, I didn't think you would understand. I really put it out there for other people who might read my posts. Nonsense. You enjoy the attention that you get from everyone here. As I said, this is a sure sign of devotion to a religious dogma. It has nothing to do with science or evidence.

If it can be proved from physical evidence then it isn't religion, it doesn't matter that it started from the Bible. Proving it from the physical evidence is what I'm trying to do, and of course I think I'm doing a pretty good job.Please do not address posts to me that you mean for somebody else, just as a way to insult me. I don't know if you succeeded in demonstrating anything about flat planar features to anybody else, but you did manage to mystify and insult me so I guess you can congratulate yourself Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why are you in a science forum? This mindset is non-scientific, no progress is possible. Putting aside that there is no flood model, who is going to do this work? As far as I'm aware there is no-one working scientificly on any of the inconvenient facts disproving your beliefs. The reason being that there's no reason to. The matters are settled.

There are lots of YECs who are working on proving the Flood. FROM THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. That's science.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for trying to explain this to me but I'm afraid I still don't get it. In fact I'm quite befuddled.. Just a bunch of random thoughts here because I'm unable to follow the point you are trying to make.You talk about "fossils" but also about things growing where they were found, which of course fossils can't do. Maybe I'd see how some creatures could be deposited live and grow in place if I could picture better what you are talking about. I guess some fast-growing creatures could proliferate during the Flood if they were underwater long enough, but I can't picture the scenario in which that would happen.I don't think of reef structures being constructed from material, I think of them as being transported whole. What's against this?Some creatures too fragile to survive being moved I'd assume were deposited dead. In fact most creatures would have been transported dead so why not the ones that make limestone?I don't even know if these thoughts make any sense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well this is great news, perhaps we can move beyond you making shit up to some science. Let's see it then.

I was merely saying I'm not alone in this effort, and when I watched that film "Is Genesis History" I was happy to find out how much of my own thoughts are those of the other creationists, geologists and other experts among them.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.