Summations Only

The logic that says the strata and their contents were created by the Flood. Everything in the strata is evidence of the pre-Flood world. We could learn a lot about the original Creation by studying those things in that context. Unfortunately they are absurdly misinterpreted to be evidence of fantastical time periods that didn't exist.

You said the world is wrecked, but quite obviously it is not, aside from man-made damage. You're just saying something absurd and ridiculous to divert attention away from all the other things you've recently said that you cannot support.Responding to a few things you said in your post: Take away the flora and fauna and you're left with dirt. So you're talking about dirt? What's wrecked about dirt?
Remove the dirt and you're left with rock. What's wrecked about rock? Perhaps you could present a few images? Granted not a thing of beauty, but wrecked? Some of the most spectacularly beautiful and dramatic photos are of rocks in the surf: You mean like these: My sympathies. See what? You haven't presented any images or even described what you're talking about. All we know so far is that you think the world is wrecked and that if we don't see it then that's just tough patooties for us. As I said before, back up your words - show us the view out one of your windows and show us how it's a wrecked world out there. Yes, it is very much your own impression, but maybe not so untypical. Have you considered that possibly you're depressed?You replied to only 2 out of my last 7 messages, and of those 2 you barely addressed any of the points made. Basically you've responded to almost nothing. Not addressing points does not make them go away.--Percy

Oh but I did. Here's Message 717 in its entirety;

Content hidden. Childish rant with no real content. A substantial lack of "niceness". A substantial amount of "asshole".

​

Official "You are in danger of getting suspended again" warning.

​

Or something like that.

​

AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Toxic message hidden.

It isn't that I don't want to. It's that you haven't responded to most of what I've said, not just today but throughout the thread and across all threads where we've discussed anything. Saying that you've ignored whole swathes of evidence and arguments would be understating things by quite a bit. Convince me you're going to discuss any image presented rather than just dismissing it. What you mean is that you have no answers, but you can't admit that, so you have to invent some problem that casts the blame elsewhere. We should have a list of Faith's best hits, all the most ridiculous reasons you've concocted about why all your shortcomings are someone else's fault. I hope you're enjoying these little off topic diversions you keep introducing. Of course this is true, but...First, you didn't quote me from the message you're replying to but from a different message. And second, what you quoted is just a summary of a more detailed argument from just a couple paragraphs earlier in that message (Message 751).But I bet we can all safely assume that you're not the kind of person who would ignore detailed arguments on purpose, that you're a person of such honesty and integrity that you will go back and find the detailed argument and post a reply to that. Nah, just kidding. But hey, surprise me. I don't know what you're drinking, but same sediment or not, if there was erosion then there couldn't possibly have been continuous deposition. They're opposites and mutually exclusive. At any given spot if one is taking place then the other definitely is not. While erosion is occurring then deposition definitely is not, so evidence of erosion is also evidence against continuous deposition. True.Look, Faith, the world is a big place with a long history, and every type of erosional and depositional sequence can be found in strata somewhere. In some cases the deposition is continuous across strata (e.g., Tapeats/Bright Angel/Muav, which is the Tonto Group), and in other cases it is not (Supai/Hermit). You can call angular unconformities exceptions until the cows come home, but it won't make it true. Once again, from Message 758 that you didn't reply to (if you want shorter messages don't ignore my posts and force me to repeat arguments):Your claim is that strata deform as a unit, except for angular unconformities. So we have this sequence of strata that form a unit and that has no angular unconformities. In your flood scenario this corresponds to after all the strata have been deposited but before the tectonic deformations have begun. These strata are a unit and must deform together:

• Kaibab
• Toroweap
• Coconino
• Hermit
• Supai
• Redwall
• Temple Butte
• Muav
• Bright Angel
• Tapeats
• Sixtymile
• Chuar
• Kwagunt
• Galeros
• Nankoweap
• Unkar
• Cardenas
• Dox
• Shinumo
• Diabase
• Hakatai
• Bass

Now the strata of this unit from Sixtymile down deform by tilting, and the layers above it do not deform. Obviously this falsifies your claim that strata deform as a unit. But this is wrong (i.e., this is a proof by contradiction) since we know that strata must deform as a unit. Therefore it's not possible that only the strata from Sixtymile down tilted, and angular unconformities cannot be an exception.And if you still insist that angular unconformities are an exception to the rule that strata deform as a unit, then by the logic above that's the same as saying, "Strata deform as a unit, except when they don't." That's arbitrary and useless.--Percy

There's no logic in that sentence. That's a bald declaration. That's another bald declaration. More bald declarations.We know you've got your little opinions, but you're unable to connect them to any evidence or rationale. And declaring sometime to be logic doesn't make it so.So once again, by what logic do you conclude that pollen and fossils are evidence of the pre-Flood world, i.e., are evidence that any such thing as a pre-Flood world ever existed.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Faith, Message 717 is just your subjective impressions. You say the world is wrecked, but you have not presented any images of where the world is wrecked, nor have you described any places where the world is wrecked. If you claim that for you deserts and badlands and hoodoos and buttes are wrecked landscapes then no one would deny that you feel this way, but these are subjective impressions. I think very few would agree with you, and there's no objectivity in the assessment anyway.Do you have any place in the world that we can see has been wrecked rather than is just a result of the natural environment? If so, what is it? I agree that places like this are desolate: But wrecked?--Percy

Yes it's my subjective impression, so what? I'm giving my subjective impression that the planet shows that it has been wrecked by a worldwide disaster. I described my impression. If you don't see it you don't see it. Forget it.

Yes all the fossils in the strata could possibly show us something about the world before the Flood because the Flood put them there. I've given the evidence for the Flood.

So can this be the last we hear about a wrecked world?--Percy

I don't know. "Subjective" doesn't mean "false" you know. Perhaps others will see it as I see it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's a bald declaration. That may be your subjective impression, but you really haven't. This is just another of your bad habits, claiming you've already provided evidence when you haven't. If you had evidence you'd be arguing the evidence instead of doing the Faith dodge.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

This is a science thread. Objectivity, evidence and rational arguments. If you want to argue the world is wrecked then give wrecked a clear definition so that we assess the real-world evidence and determine if the world is really wrecked. If you can't manage objective arguments based upon evidence and well defined terms then you should drop it.What else you should do is address all the counters to your views that have been made recently. Ignoring posts or clicking the reply button and typing a few words is pitiful.--Percy

I've argued the evidence on many threads, including this one.

As i’ve pointed out before according to your ideas the things that give you the impression of a wrecked planet didn’t even come from wrecking the planet.To call them evidence thst the planet was wrecked, then, is simply false.