Summations Only

This is a reasonable sounding request if it is true that the current theory is just a made up story. The request would not be reasonable if the current theory were dictated by the evidence.The way to discredit a theory is with contradictory evidence. Nothing else matters including what you believe the Bible says. So it is reasonable to wait for the discrediting evidence before offering a new explanation. So where is the evidence?

Could you explain what you mean by this? I thought it was non controversial that we were all of the species homo sapiens even if we disagreed on our origins. I am sure I have missed your point. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic graphic.

It was pretty clear from her response that Faith did not understand Asgara's post. Perhaps a little slower on the draw?

No. If there was no sediment, would they be eating dirt?Your question is beyond ridiculous, or would be if you understood the process being described to you at least a dozen times by now. I understand that you reject it yourself, but that is no excuse for not recognizing that you have already been given an answer to your question.Imagine the sediment forming just a thin layer on the soil and actually becoming soil by mixing with moisture minerals and organic material from the layer below and from new sources external to the layer of sediment. Now imagine this process continuing over time. In that case, the top layer would be essentially a soil layer that grows over time, that top layer always being just as capable of supporting life.The lower layers then become rock through processes already described. If animals are sleeping on the ground, then yes.What is the difference between sleeping on the ground and sleeping on a small layer of sediment on the ground? Nothing. In either case, the animals just get dirty.

At least three posts out of the last ten have provided descriptions indicating that this does not happen in between landscapes, because the process of becoming rock occurs beneath the landscape. Maybe some exceptions for cooled magma. I am having a difficult time understanding how a reasonably intelligent person has not shifted to the position of attacking what is actually being claimed instead of attacking a position that nobody here holds.Also, despite your indication to the contrary, landscapes are partially composed of sediments. It is not clear to me what you think they are composed of.

If you know that landscapes are partly sediment, then why do you make the moronic claim that animals do not walk or live on sediment? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Small amounts of sediment deposited on soil become soil, because organic material is available to mix with the sediment. How can that not be clear to you, if you are making any effort whatsoever to understand what people are actually saying.You've also denied that soil can become rock under soil. It is quite clear that you are simply denying what folks are saying. I cannot tell whether your errors are willful or if you are simply incapable of understanding. But from start to finish your position in this thread has been completely untenable.

That is certainly a reasonable request. Let's make it mutual. This is not the point of contention. We all agree that you cannot live on rock. The problem here is your insistence that you cannot live on a landscape onto which a very small rate of sedimentation occurs over a long period of time. If you can include clearing this up when you refer to a landscape as being "unlivable" we will all be in agreement.If you can wrap your head around that and around lithification perhaps we can at least understand each other. That may be impossible. Perhaps the miscommunication can be kept to a minimum if you refer only to the strata at a particular location such as the grand canyon, or Nova Scotia. There is no "The Geological Column" because the make up of the rocks for the same time period is completely different at different locations. Only at a particular location. This exactly the same problem as item 2. Perhaps this is a point that you could clarify further because as expressed, it is entirely confusing. I agree that Nature does not make perfectly flat surfaces of rock. The question then is whether rock is too flat for the current natural explanation. But until you understand the processes postulated for creating strata, and to date there is little evidence that you do, you have no criteria for saying that any particular layer is too straight to match the current explanation. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a quote box.

I highly encourage you to take as much time as you need and to go at a pace that seems comfortable to you. I may ask you questions, but one thing I will not do is harangue you for not responding to me quickly, or ever.Your last few posts do, in my opinion display a much improved grasp on what geologists are really saying. None of that means that you have to agree with the geologists, but perhaps you have improved the basis for continued discussion. Nice work.

That's a laptop specific thing. On my computer F11 does nothing unless the browser window is selected. In that case the browser goes into full screen mode.

I don't know if your characterization above is correct or not, but it is clear that you have made a solid effort to understand. That effort has not always been so apparent.It might be helpful to your presentation if when you say that something is impossible that you give a reason along with that statement. If you cannot do that, then perhaps that means that your own reasoning has not solidified.But that's just my own impression. YMMV.

I think Faith means this term to refer to land with at least some scraggly plants and some available water so that we might have an ecosystem. Perhaps it is not worthwhile to fight about that definition.

I thought you asked for a moratorium on this kind of stuff. Are we to return to judgment mode again?

"no ultimate sense"You know that erosion and deposition actually do occur and by your own admission, the explanations are at least plausible. Accordingly your conclusion that the results do not make sense is simply denial based on your principle that geology is not a real science. Quite frankly, once the discussion reaches that point, why is there any point in offering you anything more or in listening to your complaints. What's left to discuss? Why even start a thread like this one?

That may be the information you are getting now, but how many times prior to this point has lithification been discussed? In my opinion, your comment is completely without merit. Say what? You haven't looked at it, but it's wrong? For the most part, answering your questions simply requires describing how things might work rather than proving any such thing. After all, your premise is that the entire non-Flood scenario is impossible. It is going to be nearly impossible to offer real evidence to you because once it becomes time to cite that evidence, you are not going to make any attempt to read the material.What would you have us do in such a case?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.