Summations Only

What are these actual laws you seem so knowledgeable about? Can you state the law of gravity? Can you state the law of existence? How many actual laws are there?

Oh, good grief. So you really are just making up a bunch of nonsensical gibberish.Cyanide flavored bubblegum does not exist. Is the banana loud or steep?The penalty for breaking the 1st law of existence is uncontrolled laughter and unaligned molecubes.

Nope. Well, that's too bad, because you failed. I just can't understand anything you are writing. It is gibberish. You must have a hard time communicating in your real life. It looks like he is doing fine to me.

Do you guys understand what Dawn is saying? I cannot find any meaning in it. It just seems like he is stringing a bunch of nonsense phrases together with grammatical and spelling mistakes that frankly should have been corrected by the 7th grade.Is it only Coyote and I that think this is nothing but gibberish? You guys are carrying on with perfectly reasonable answers and question as if what he writes is completely understood.

Oh, stop with the bullshit. I, unlike you, have been trained to follow evidence; and to use it to understand how the Universe works.You, on the other hand, spout gibberish and pretend that you have some profound knowledge, but the simple truth you are demonstrating is that you cannot communicate in a coherent manner.

I made no demands for anything but clear communication. I cannot understand anything you write, but I yield, I am through trying.

So here we are 265 posts and still not a sign of science in creationism.A bunch of incoherent ravings about some caricature of science and incoherent demands for something, something about indirect and direct evidence, and some smug posturing about all your opponents ducking the hard questions, but where's the beef?We thought you were going to show us some creation science, but all you seem to have is gibberish about your opponents.Are you ever going to teach us about the science in creationism?

Imaginary is what all the evidence shows.

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Professor.I fail to see how your rant about mutations and evolution has anything to do with the "science in creationism."

These aeolian deposits of the Navajo Sandstone refute your statements above. They are terrestrial deposits of sand dune formed by wind. Anyone can see that these strata are NOT "absolutely identical as to their basic form."The Navajo is part of the Jurrasic Glen Canyon Group that overlays the Triassic Chinle Formation and is overlain by the Jurrasic San Rafael Group.

What feature makes it obvious to you? Actually, the overlying strata was eroded away where those photos were shot. Those "lumps" are just the last remnants of a widespread layer that were a bit harder than the rest. Less than 1/4 mile away the Navajo still lays under the overlying strata. So, some how, windblown sand dunes managed to form between layers that were deposited by water, supposedly during a single flood? And by the way, The Navajo Sandstone is also considered strata. Strata just means sedimentary layers.Making stuff up when you don't know what you're talking about doesn't change the fact that the photos refute what you said:

quote:

---

There were no terrestrial deposits. That's a misreading of the evidence. All the strata are absolutely identical as to their basic form.

---

An aeolian layer between water deposited layers because that is what we can see. And yes, there are multiple examples transgressions and regressions in the region. Those are some of the evidence that led to the conclusions that these layers were deposited over many millions of years. None of these layers are evidence for a single global flood.

Nope, because unlike you I have learned a whole bunch of cool things about geology here at EvC. I am especially fascinated with the geological formations that are exposed by erosion in the Southwest during the present regression. (When I say "exposed by erosion" I mean carved by erosion.)__________________________________________________ I have to say thank you though, because the discussions here at EvC about your flood and geology spurred me into making more trips to the SW to examine the evidence more closely.__________________________________________________ Yes as I said back in Message 560

quote:

---

And by the way, The Navajo Sandstone is also considered strata. Strata just means sedimentary layers.

---

__________________________________________________ Actually, I don't think that is how geological science describes how those formations were formed. The upper strata and the Navaho Sandstone strata were eroded, causing those final shapes to be left. Those remaining lumps are slowly eroding away and will eventually be gone. ABE: Which will expose the upper surface of the Kayenta formation, see below:__________________________________________________ Really? Are you saying that the geology side of discussions here at EvC have claimed that erosion creates only flat surfaces, let alone, perfectly flat surfaces? Now that would be silly considering all the photos of canyons and mountains that have been posted here.__________________________________________________Interestingly, erosion is creating some pretty flat terrain at the edge of the Navaho Sandstone exposure where these shots were taken. __________________________________________________The dinosaur trackway is a couple miles away from the sandstone lumps. edge explained that in Message 14

quote:

---

Lithification of Jurassic sandstone on the Colorado Plateau is pretty basic. It consists simply of weak cementation, mostly by calcium carbonate. In dry climates they can be preserved as positive topographic features. Even slight differences in the degree of cementation and/or fracturing can result in some of the spires and buttes that are common on the CP.

---

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.