Summations Only

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. If there's any period of time in that scenario when nothing could live then the scenario is kaput. If you skip from sedimentation to landscape of course you skip over such periods, but they are what need accounting for. 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.Give it another try. Maybe you can still come up with a scenario that allows the Geo Timescale to be right. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do? What are you talking about? 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.

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.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?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

That's a lot of blather about how proving the current theory wrong would not prove the Flood, but you really haven't made a case for that.If the whole Geo timescale idea that's based on the rock strata turns out to be false/impossible, I see no other alternative than the Flood to explain the known facts.And you haven't offered one. "It would have to be modified" begs the question. HOW would it have to be modified? WHAT would you change to account for the utter destruction of the idea that you can get from a landscape to a rock to another landscape? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you. That is indeed what I'm arguing, and despite the usual attempts to discredit anything I say by hook or by crook, I'm still arguing it.

This is slander, PK, and I'm asking you now for evidence of ANY instance where I EVER argued with the Bible. It will of course turn out to be only that I disagree with YOUR view of the Bible, not the Bible itself. Go ahead, fire away.

Bla bla de bla, jar. More assertion, not a shred of evidence. The supposed refutations are bogus inventions of anti-Christian "scholars" which of course you accept but I don't. You have not said one thing to support your assertion that if the scenario I'm dismantling here is wrong the Flood would not be the logical explanation in its place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Please explain how accumulated dust gets sorted into a particular sediment such as sand or clay or calcareous ooze, which characterize most of the rocks in the strata.Then please explain how it forms a nice flat layer that becomes a rock in the strata that extends for large distancesYou can account for the burying of a village this way but not for the formation of the strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Changing the subject is of course an effective deception, but you are the one who said that if the Geo theory as it is being discussed here is in fact discredited, the Flood would not be the logical alternative. I suggest you take it back because you neither understand the argument I'm making and how it would destroy the current theory, nor what the possible alternatives would be that you claim would exist. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

Without information about exactly how many fossils, complete and incomplete, have been found of ALL creatures (there's an ENORMOUS number of them, as shown on the charts posted back a ways), simply saying that there aren't many complete fossils of a particular kind of dinosaur doesn't really say much. One can still ask why there are any at all or as many as there are given the rarity of the conditions for fossilization to occur.I also found this information interesting, from your link: A likely story. Try the Flood as the most effective possibility.

Do you never tire of your unsupported assertions designed only to poison the well?

Yeah yeah yeah. No the Flood has never been disproved and the efforts are mostly pathetically inadequate notions of what it would have done and what evidence it would have left.But if you want to say the Flood couldn't explain the phenomena of the Geo Timetscale if that is thoroughly discredited, then how about offering another theory instead?Good luck. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The river flood story is pathetic. That's what I said.