Summations Only

Sure, I recognize it. That is the ugly, raw, gaping wound in your argument.All of the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that the geological processes we see today have been occurring for many hundreds of millions years. ALL THE EVIDENCE.Before you have any chance whatsoever you have to present evidence that not only refutes the findings of science (hundreds of millions of years of geological processes), but that lends absolute support to your argument. Your operative word here is "imaginary", but although you repeatedly assert this you have been completely unsuccessful in demonstrating it. You have no evidence. As I said above you cannot show what you are trying to show until you first refute the evidence of millions of years of geological processes and present evidence for your imaginary problem. Well, so far you have not presented any evidence that supports the assertion that the vast periods of time are imaginary. The reason you can't get it across is because all the evidence shows that you are wrong. Boy, I hear you, but I am living proof that bald is beautiful...... No one is misreading you Faith. Everyone can clearly see that your thinking is hopelessly muddled. We disagree with you, but that doesn't mean we don't or can't understand you. The flaws in your argument are gaping, glaring wounds like I said earlier. You will never convince anyone until you address those.

The problem with imaginary concepts is that they are very flexible and can be bent in enough directions to seem to prove themselves correct. I nevertheless have had the hope that I CAN demonstrate that, because they are imaginary,l the concepts of former landscapes/environments in separate time periods, also imaginary, run into physical obstacles in getting from there to the actual physically real stratified sedimentary rocks that represent them. I still think it may be possible to show this. Even if I could, however, I do doubt the ability of those for whom the concepts of stacked time and stacked landscapes have solidified into concrete and glued their brain cells into an indissoluble mass, to be able to recognize the proof even if I can pull it off.

The idea that what we are looking at when examining a geological column is time and changes over time is supported by several facts and facts from several different methods, technologies and areas of inquiry.The first fact is superposition; layers that are on top of another layer are younger than the underlying layer.The second fact is the make up of the layer itself. The physical and chemical composition of a layer can indicate how long it took for the layer to form.The third fact is sequential layering; where there is an ordered series of alternating layer types.Another fact is the appearance heavier coarser materials above layers made of of lighter finer grained layers. That indicates that two different processes were involved.Another indicator is alternating layers formed in a marine and terrestrial environment.Then there are layers of different types of materials, volcanic ash and magma.In metamorphic rocks intrusions are often found and the intruded material must be younger than the surrounding material.Other indicators are the many different forms of absolute dating; radiometric, luminescence, paleomagnetic, incremental dating.Then there are the biological inclusions as well as tracks and trails.The important thing is that all of these various tools tell us ages, they measure time and also changes over time.

Well, you have bent your imaginary concepts into shapes that put 10 dimensional spcetime to shame, but they don't seem to prove themselves correct, for that you need evidence. Ah, the last refuge of those losing the argument, accuse your opponents of being too stupid to understand your brilliance. Well done.

Oh good grief, the usual question-begging recital of the party line from you. Groan. Golly gee, even the Flood would demonstrate superposition. The odd thing is that all the layers look about the same age, same degree of wear and tear, same degree of erosion. For differences up to hundreds of millions of years that's pretty remarkable. Walther's Law produces an ordered series of alternating layers types and Walther's Law is consistent with the idea of Flood water rising and receding. The Flood probably dumped sediment by many different processes. Except that the idea of different environments in which the different layers were deposited is pure fiction, a misreading of the evidence. So? Volcanoes are considered to have begun erupting along with the tectonic forces unleashed with the Flood. Uh, so? Most of the dating methods are some kind of illusion. For one thing the very idea that it would take more than a few hundred years to get the kinds of varieties of, say, trilobites, from one "time period" to another is absurd. Millions of years would simply wipe out all living things. The huge number of fossils is in itself evidence for the Flood, whose objective was to kill all terrestrial living things; and it's possible to account for the other things during the Flood as well. Well, there's time and then there's time and there are also different interpretations of everything you said. What I'm talking about is the basic absurdity of stacks of time periods, one on top of another with separate environments stacked one on top of another, containing separate collections of living things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No Faith, you are simply talking. You have not provided any support for your position that there is a basic absurdity of stacks of time periods, one on top of another with separate environments stacked one on top of another, containing separate collections of living things. Perhaps if you concentrated on that you might make some progress. Yet you have already admitted several times that you cannot explain how any flood could sort materials or biological samples in the order found in reality. Unfortunately Walther's Law does NOT explain the ordered sequences found in reality. Except as usual that is simply not true Faith. The layers do not look all about the same age which is why geologists have not assigned all the layers to the same time period. We know you keep repeating that Faith yet you have never provided any evidence in support of that assertion. Again Faith, that is simply not true. There are no mentions of volcanic or tectonic activity in either of the Biblical flood myths. Yes Faith, we have heard you assertions but again you have never produced any evidence to support such assertions.The problem Faith is you have nothing but imagination and fantasy while the conventional positions is supported by actual facts and evidence.Finding a fossil imprint of a leaf inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that the leaf fell from a tree on a surface environment onto the ground BEFORE that ground turned into a rock.Finding a tree stump inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that the tree grew on a surface environment BEFORE that ground turned into a rock.Finding a fossil critter inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that the critter lived on a surface environment BEFORE that ground turned into a rock.Finding a fossil imprint of tracks inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that a critter lived and walked on that surface environment BEFORE that ground turned into a rock.Finding petrified stream ripples inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that a stream ran across that surface environment BEFORE that ground turned into a rock.Finding petrified sand dunes inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that a desert surface environment was there BEFORE that ground turned into a rock.Ancient environments are as real as an Old Earth and as evidenced as anything happening today.

And I'm sure that it's everyone else's fault.I thought you were talking about the 'landscape' preserved in terrestrial deposits that tell us something about the conditions and habitat that existed at that time. Please tell my why lake sediments, or sand dunes, or swamps would not do that.As far as the definition of stratum goes, I have never said that 'strata' include non-layered rocks. They would. however. include sand dunes, coal swamps, lake sediments and sand bars.

Then please explain how tracks would be preserved in the middle of a global flood. So, that's your argument? It's 'some kind of illusion'? This need clarification. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Why is that? This is just an assertion. What do you mean? And yet, there they are.

It's interesting that the "Neat" layers seen in the Grand Canyon are actually marine and terrestrial, show several incursions, record an ancient desert and quite a few unconformities which are absolute evidence of periods when a layer was at the surface and eroded away.From the Wiki entry on the Geology of the Grand Canyon:

quote:

---

The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores in western North America. Both marine and terrestrial sediments are represented, including fossilized sand dunes from an extinct desert. There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon.

---

Note yet again the emphasis on the fact that what is actually recorded is time and change over time and that the layers show shallow seas, ancient sea shores, marine and terrestrial environments and even a desert.

Walther's Law explains the relation between the lateral depositional environments deposits and the vertical sequence of those same deposits, when the depositional environments migrate. It was originally formulated when Walther was studying river deposits, but is much more easily understood when looking at transgressing/regressing seas deposits.I'm not to keen on the phrase "Walther's Law produces"; Rather it should be "Walther's Law explains". That said, I think that Faith's statement has a lot of truth to it. But where Jar may be correct, is that the sequences found in reality show repeated major sea transgressions/regressions, not anything like only one major transgression/regression (which would seem the be the Biblical flood scenario).Walther's Law does explain much of the ordered sequences found in reality. But it's not a single great flood reality.Moose

As much evidence or more than you have for yours. That's a laugh and a half. The environments and time periods are nothing but fantasy. Or sediment in the process of being transported by the Flood. More likely was uprooted by the Flood and buried in a lot of sediment. Or more likely was killed in the Flood and carried along with a bunch of sediment in which it was finally buried, which then turned into a rock.. Which probably occurred between waves of the Flood as it was running to avoid being drowned. Something that probably happened as a Flood wave receded before a new one came in and deposited more sediment onto the rippled surface. The very idea of sand dues ending up as an enormous layer of rock with flat bottom and top extending for huge distances is nutty. The resemblance to DUNES is absolutely nil; it's a flat rock. The sand was most likely transported in the Flood water and deposited in a layer like all the other layers that surround it.

But oh no they aren't there at all. The stack of rocks is there, but there are no stacks of time periods or stacks of environments, just rocks with fossils in them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm talking about what you THINK is a landscape preserved in terrestrial deposits but there is no landscape there, just some bits of stuff you take as clues to a landscape that was there before the deposits were, but wasn't. There are no signs of such former landscapes, the ONLY actual reality is the stacks of rocks. There WAS NO habitat at any time where the rock now is. The rock is on top of another rock which is on top of another rock, etc. etc., very thick flat rocks that often extend for huge distances, all of which were formerly wet sediments containing different collections of stuff you take as clues to different environments, one on top of another, but there is nothing there but the rocks, the habitats or environments are purely imaginary. You are misreading the clues in the rocks. Because they are imaginary lake sediments or sand dunes or swamps that you read into a few clues you find in the rocks. It certainly sounded like it but I'm glad it isn't what you meant. Only imaginary ones though.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If there is anything to the transgressing-regressing seas as seen in the rock record I would suppose that represents long tides or waves during the Flood as it rose onto the land and then receded. That would leave shoreline marks and give time for animals to make a run for it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I'm not calling anyone stu*pid, just a victim of lithified bias that has been educated into the brain and can no longer be dissolved or extricated. Or paradigm cramp is another word for it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.