Summations Only

quote:

---

Drawing the logical conclusion from a set of facts does not imply that anyone holds that conclusion and I did not imply that, far from it, in fact entirely the opposite.

---

But you aren't "drawing the logical conclusion". You are trying to find a problem in the conventional view and coming up with silly nonsense because you can't be bothered to understand it.

quote:

---

When a landscape gets buried the point is that anything still living would have no place to live because there is no longer a landscape to support life. Sediment alone isn't going to support anything that needs plants or smaller animals for food.

---

But this is just silly. River floodplains are fertile because of the sediment deposited on them. Sediment deposits do not automatically create barren wastelands as you would have us believe.

quote:

---

Well, I'm still trying to account for how a rock was once a landscape that became a rock.

---

It doesn't look like it. Because all this "animals would have nowhere to live" nonsense is completely irrelevant to that. It seems that you're mainly trying to pretend that your silly argument about that is actually good. But if you're determined to waste time making a fool of yourself - which is what you are doing - that is your problem.

quote:

---

The rocks of the strata are made up in many cases of sediments that are not fertile, just sand or calcareous ooze and so on, that show no signs of ever having been fertile.

---

You mean rocks that were formed of sediment deposited in deserts or on the seabed are made of the sediments you would find in a desert or in a seabed ? And the fossils we find in those strata would be the sort of life we'd find in a desert or in the sea.

quote:

---

Besides, if they were fertile why isn't anyone describing it as a new landscape rather than "sediments?"

---

I don't think that anyone would predict that you would make that specific mistake, so nobody would try to word around it.

quote:

---

A fertile sediment isn't going to feed a dinosaur.

---

The plants it helps grow, or the animals feeding on those plants will, though. Could you really not reason that far ?Like I keep saying, look at what is happening in the modern world instead of making things up. Or look at history. The annual flooding of the Nile wasn't a terrible disaster (except on rare occasions) - it was he foundation of Egypts power, thanks in part to the fertilising effect of the sediment left behind.

quote:

---

The only thing for sure in the scenario so far is that the landscape the creatures lived in has disappeared -- under deep sediment according to you all.

---

The landscape that was there a long, long time ago you mean. Which really doesn't have much to do with the life living in the surface now.Instead of trying to mix up lithification and where things are living just try talking about one or the other. The two have so little to do with each other you that you are just confusing yourself.

quote:

---

At the point in the scenario being discussed there hasn't been time for plants to grow, the sediment has simply been piling up.

---

I think it should be obvious that I was talking about a landscape that was already populated, not inventing a scenario for you. You might for instance note that I was responding to remarks made before that request.You do realise that by starting with an unpopulated landscape the who'd question of where the life went is moot ? So why ask for a scenario which invalidates your main point a.

Faith proposes that the pre-Flood landscape was massively eroded by heavy rainfall, and then had - literal - tons of sediment dumped on it. Nevertheless those departing the ark found an adequately livable landscape a matter of months after the flood subsided.And yet she also proposes that much smaller scale events must devastate the land and render it uninhabitable. Even though events of that sort occur today - and don't.Even if Faith has an explanation for the first, the second is still obviously daft. But she keeps on and on at it.

quote:

---

No idea what you are talking about. I've been keeping the time factor in mind all along, it's what makes or breaks the standard geo scenario

---

Since the material you quote makes no mention of the time factor at all it is rather obvious that you didn't even read it.And I would say that it is also obvious that you are not taking adequate account of the time factor because it invalidates your argument,

quote:

---

If there's any period of time in that scenario when nothing could live then the scenario is kaput

---

Excepting the time before life that is correct. However that does not mean that making desperate and less than half-baked attempts to find such a time is a good idea. It is far better to understand first and avoid foolish mistakes.

quote:

---

If you skip from sedimentation to landscape of course you skip over such periods, but they are what need accounting for.

---

The reason I say that you should not mix up lithification with where the animals went. By doing that you are skipping over vast spans of time.However the claim that we are skipping over periods when there was nowhere habitable on Earth, however, begs the question. First it must be established that there were such periods, and you have not even come close to providing any sort of sensible argument that there was any such time,

quote:

---

When one landscape is gone, buried, no longer livable, any creature still living needs a place to live. though really nothing could be living at that point anyway). If all that's happening is the build-up of sediment to a great depth burying their landscape their choice is to keep living on sediment or die. Nothing can live on mere sediment so they die. And if they die that kind of kills the Geo Timescale which has creatures living on or creatures evolving from creatures.

---

If you don't realise how foolish and ignorant that is by now then I can only suggest that you go back and READ the posts in this thread. Especially edge's.The sediment builds up slowly, just as it does today. Creatures went on living on the surface just as they do today. There is no problem, we know that there is no problem because it is all happening today with no problem.

quote:

---

There was already an olive tree which implies other trees and plant life had survived. There were also probably still provisions on the ark. Seeds too, that could have been immediately planted. I've also modified the idea that all the land was scoured though much of it must have been from all that heavy rain.

---

Nevertheless you are still proposing a disaster far more extreme in magnitude and coverage than anything propose by mainstream geology. Even the massive volcanic eruptions that formed the Deccan and Siberian Traps only covered a small part of the Earth.If your Flood could not render the Earth uninhabitable then how could much smaller events do so ? When there is far. Ore time to recover, too. It just makes no sense at all.

quote:

---

But you are talking about a large expanse of nothing but sediment, the sediment that eventually became the large expanse of rock. Where's the comparison?

---

The same sediment that you propose was dumped on the surface in less than a year. The comparison is rather obvious. You propose a far more rapid and devastating event that has not left us with an uninhabitable planet despite all that.

quote:

---

Sorry, the way you talk to me does not inspire me to read anything you've ever written. If you want me to understand it then explain it again. I have no idea what your post was meant to convey except the usual insults.

---

Believe me, there were no insults there.Let me make the crucial point again. Sedimentation is going on now. It does not automatically make the land uninhabitable. Often it contributes to the fertility. As in the example of the Nile valley, which made Egypt a great power in the ancient world and kept Rome fed.This simple fact refutes your whole argument.

Originally Faith seems to have assumed that lithification occurred at the surface, but really I was making a rather simpler point.The time between the point when a particular stratum was the surface and the time it really starts to lithified is so long that it does not really make sense to talk about them together, as Faith often has. It would be far more sensible to look at points closer in time, consider actual cases, using the actual geology and fossils where there is a change rather than a hiatus in deposition. That might actually prove enlightening - which may be one reason why Faith avoids this reasonable course.But the closest Faith comes is to speak in generalisations which seem to be based on assumption rather than fact.

quote:

---

I do? What are you talking about?

---

You are proposing that ordinary sedimentation, much less drastic than your version of the Flood (obviously, since it is the same material but deposited over a vastly linger period of time) must render the land uninhabitable. That is the core of your argument. How strange that you cannot even recognise it.

quote:

---

Lots of things occur today that couldn't have happened if the Geo Timescale is correct. Which is the whole point I'm focused on.

---

But you are arguing that the sort of events that do happen today must have had consequences we do not see today. That is not exactly a sensible argument.

At this point I think it's more a refusal to admit that the silly things she made up could be wrong. It's not as if Faith is shy about disagreeing with the Bible when she doesn't like what it says. It's easier for her to say that God got it wrong than it is to admit her own errors.

Yawn. Here you are disagreeing with Romans 13 Message 303Although since this is off-topic we can take it to another thread. We can certainly talk about Isaiah 7 and Daniel 8, too.

quote:

---

Sorry, you can't deny a specific claim with a general statement like that. If the current theory is discredited in a particular way to a particular degree there may be only the Flood left as the reasonable alternative and no general assertion can disprove that. If you are going to claim it wouldn't be the reasonable alternative you have to prove it.

---

That would be a wild speculation. If there was evidence that discredited mainstream geology - and that is itself incredibly unlikely - the replacement theory would have to deal with that evidence, as well as all the evidence currently explained by mainstream geology. And we cannot sensibly begin to construct a replacement until we do have that evidence (and we don't). Also, since the Flood is not even a remotely viable explanation for the evidence we do have, it would still be incredibly unlikely that the Flood would be the answer.So no, your attacks on mainstream geology couldn't achieve what you want even if they were true. But since you can't support them in any rational way it really doesn't matter.

I shall try again to explain why your point makes no sense.

quote:

---

still can't see any way you could have a large flat expanse of sediment that becomes rock, that was once a particular landscape that becomes the rock, which gets buried under a LOT of sediment,..

---

Firstly you are confusing the issue by linking the eventual deep burial of the sediment with the issue of where the creatures used to live. AGAIN.As we keep pointing out the burial is slow and life just goes on living on the current surface, just as it does todaY. So, the burial is not a problem and we know that it is not a problem.

quote:

---

...in which the creatures that supposedly lived in that particular time period/ landscape got buried with the rock -- because that's the only landscape said to exist at that time so all the creatures would have had to die and not pass on their genes to the next layer of landscape/sediment/rock/landscape/time period.

---

This is just weird. Why do the creatures have to die before leaving descendants ? It is not as if all the fossils we find are juveniles. So all you have there is an unlikely assertion,

quote:

---

You imagine other places they could live, but their fossils aren't found in other places, only in this particular rock associated with this particular time period.

---

Really ? I've yet to see any reason to believe that, especially as we are mainly talking about terrestrial areas which generally have limited extents - and many terrestrial areas won't be experiencing net deposition so there will be areas which don't leave much record.

quote:

---

This could maybe be explained for a particular time period or two or three (though I'm not sure how), but not for every time period up the whole geo column at that location. The answers I've been getting seem mostly just to assume there's no problem and my description is crazy,

---

Well it is really simple. The animals keep on living in the same area unless and until something happens to change that. Sometimes they will move elsewhere, sometimes the local population will die out, sometimes even large numbers of species will go extinct. But there is never any reason to believe that everything on the planet died.There is no problem with sedimentation today, so we don't need to assume that there were problems in the past.As for the rest, so far as I can tell that's just your mistaken impression. You haven't given one concrete example. Which is really odd, because without concrete examples you don't have any real evidence.

Flood geology proposes that the entire world was suddenly deeply buried in sedimentMainstream geology does notRemember that and maybe this discussion will have one fewer problem.

quote:

---

If a year is "suddenly," yes, and everything died. Remember?

---

Not according to you - you have trees somehow managing to survive.But that is not the main point. According to you the surface of the planet should be completely uninhabitable at that point, and - even if we except a relatively small area -somehow it has to recover quite rapidly for the rest of history - or even your Bible stories - to be possible.

quote:

---

Thank you for your helpful reminder. Have no clue what the point is but thanks anyway.

---

It means that when you start to talk about deep burial of the landscape leaving nowhere to live, you are talking about the Flood, not mainstream geology.