Summations Only

quote:

---

As usual what seems obvious to me is being fought tooth and nail by those who couldn't bear to see the Flood emerge as the actual explanation for the evidence, and that in a nutshell is what the argument at the other thread has been since I posted that cartoon.

---

This is a substantial misrepresentation that largely reverses the reality of the situation.It would be fairer to say that Faith was fighting tooth and nail against the fact that the Flood is not a viable explanation of the evidence.And if an obvious falsehood seems obviously true to her then that is her problem, not the problem of those who would reject it.

quote:

---

No, what I'm saying is that what is actually seen is stacks of rocks that make it impossible for there ever to have been any such landscape as is inferred from the contents and qualities of those rocks. This isn't expecting to see such a landscape, it is expecting to see that such a landscape was possible and finding out it wasn't, that it is nothing but a fiction.

---

This is simply an opinion based on ignoring the evidence - largely through not bothering to investigate it - but also through rejecting obvious examples that have actually been produced. Nothing has been "found" - it is pure imagination on Faiths part.

quote:

---

Strange analogy and unrelated to my argument. The orderliness of the fossil record seems to be a problem for the Flood if that's where you start, but if you start by recognizing that the OE explanation is in fact physically impossible then there is nothing left but the Flood to explain the facts.

---

Again, Faiths position relies on imagining rather than "recognising" any real problems for the scientific view. And rather bizarre imaginings at that. She imagines that the surfaces of the planet must have been only rock in the time of the dinosaurs - offering not a shred of evidence for that claim. She imagines that sediment must be dropped on an area, all at once rather than gradually accumulating as it does today. In contrast, the evidence against the Flood is real objective fact, despite Faiths attempts to confuse the issue.

quote:

---

So far it should have been made clear that the great extent of the strata of the Geologic Column takes the place of any landscape inferred to have existed in each time period.

---

The "great extent" applies to only some strata, others are more local. Especially those from terrestrial environments. And, of course, terrestrial environments are more likely to be subject to net erosion and therefore lost from the record anyway.

quote:

---

If where there should be dinosaurs roaming there is only in reality a huge slab of rock (or a sea transgression etc) then dinosaurs simply could not have been roaming in that putative "time period." The time period is a fiction.

---

The idea that there was only "a huge slab of rock" is a fiction. An outright invention.

quote:

---

The dinosaurs roamed before the Geo Column was laid down, on an actual landscape before it was covered in sediments miles deep

---

If the Flood is to be seen as the "actual explanation" of the evidence it must explain both the position of the dinosaurs in the fossil record and the evidence of landscapes found in the geological record. Dismissing the first and denying the second obviously cannot achieve that. Thus, this line of argument cannot possibly succeed.

quote:

---

For those who say the cartoon is wrong, I would quote edge from the other thread, in Message 501 where he is agreeing that landscapes in the various time periods are created and then eroded away to flatness, when sediments can be deposited on the flat surface:

---

Which hardly helps the idea that there never was a landscape there.

quote:

---

Is the cartoon meant to illustrate the entire world?

---

Then it is poorly labelled, and likely irrelevant. Maybe you can find regions where there was a flat landscape at some times and mountains today, but that hardly helps your argument.

quote:

---

From what he has said above it seems to me the cartoon is right on: everything has been eroded away and there is nothing but the flat expanse of sediment, which would be the case at the end of the time period.

---

Given that your central claim was that there were no landscapes, rather than that the landscapes were present but lost to the geological record this seems more than a little disingenuous. (It is also wrong - you can't be sure that the erosion was complete at the end of the period - it must have been complete by the time the next stratum up was deposited but it is very hard to know what happened in between)If the cartoon was intended to illustrate a position that you never stated you can hardly blame us for thinking that it was intended to illustrate the position that you did state - not when it better fits the position you openly stated. Nor can you blame us for suspecting that you are rewriting the past and that the cartoon was intended to represent the position you claimed all along.

In the other thread, Faith claimed that the Grand Staircase included extensive terrestrial formations containing dinosaur fossils.In looking so far I have found that:The Kaiparowits formation is rich in dinosaur fossils, but seems to have a relatively limited extent. It may well be that parts have been lost to erosion, but it does not seem to offer any problem to old earth beliefs.The Navajo Sandstone is more extensive, but it was a desert, so that is not surprising. More of a problem for Faiths Flood geology than for mainstream science.The Kayenta formation lead me to some interesting and relevant information.From WikipediaThere is more, but this is enough. Clearly it speaks more of a fossil landscape than a load of sediment dumped by a raging flood.

quote:

---

Where I get it is from the flat surfaces of the layers of the strata, some extremely flat and tightly adherent to the layer above or below. Isn't it reasonable to interpret the flatness on the top as the last surface presented by a given rock, pretty much "wiped clean" before the sediment that marks the next age begins depositing on that surface?

---

If it is flat - and there are plenty of exceptions, and if it isn't a naturally flat environment and if the flatness isn't the result of the infilling of depressions then you might expect erosion. However it is certainly not the case that differing sediment "marks the next age".

quote:

---

I you look at a deep stack of layers where they remain intact and haven't been tectonically distorted, such as in the walls of the Grand Canyon, I would think the impression would be overwhelming that they were all laid down by the same processes: all have flat tops and bottoms, suggesting that all were thoroughly "wiped clean" before the next deposition came along.

---

That is not true as you ought to know by now. Does the word "monadnock" remind you of anything ?

quote:

---

When you say "That is not what science says is happening here" all I can say is that science seems to be looking at some other evidence than I'm looking at.

---

Science looks at a lot of evidence you don't. Including evidence that you apparently refuse to look at. Now I certainly don't expect you to look at all the evidence because there's just too damn much. But you ought to take into account the fact that scientists know a whole lot more than you do - and stop ignoring evidence that contradicts you.

quote:

---

This is very nice theory, but the fact is that the ages are identified by discrete layers of rock.

---

I think we've been over this before. You can have multiple strata - multiple formations even - for a single age, and I've pointed out an example of a formation that crosses a boundary (not between major geological ages, but between ages which subdivide those)Which, you will note, do not exactly correspond to geological ages. Isn't that a bit of a problem for your argument ?

quote:

---

And then read what edge and Dr. A have been saying: landscapes form on the surface of the rock and then get eroded down and down and down until they are very very flat, and then comes the sediment deposition. They have been saying this on the other thread.

---

You seem to be engaged in a generalisation that adds up to misrepresentation here. Saying that something does happen is not the same as saying that it always happens. And what about all the places where the strata are not flat or where depressions gave been filled ?Really the relationship between the strata and the geological ages is not as neat as you assume. Your usual mistake I suppose of taking a superficial impression as an "obvious" truth and closing your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong. A fault that causes you no end of problems here, and one you would do well to avoid, if you can.

quote:

---

Well, that's the theory I'm trying to take on, the question of whether there ever were any landscapes at all. The strata exist, are evidenced in many different ways; the theory of former landscapes based on those strata, on the other hand, is purely theoretical.

---

Is is another if those things that is so "obvious" that you keep on believing it even after it has been shown to be false ? What about the evidence - the river channels, the monadnocks, the lithified sand dunes, the lime deposits from dried up lakes and ponds and the tracks ?No, the idea is very solidly based on very strong evidence. I do not see any way you could honestly claim otherwise at this point - to really, ever since you would have to familiarise yourself with the evidence to know at all.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

quote:

---

The landscape is the sediment on top" doesn't convey anything to me. I want to know how the landscape forms at all on top of a rock that is a layer in the strata, a landscape with everything needed to sustain life. When does it occur, how does it occur.

---

Isn't that essentially asking how landscapes form ? You don't doubt the existence of modern landscapes so why couldn't those ancient landscapes have formed in much the same way ?

quote:

---

ow can a new "depositional environment" form on top of a layer in the strata? And why is all we see when looking at the strata the rock itself and the contact between it and the next rock?

---

A depositional environment is just somewhere where sediment is being deposited faster than erosive forces move it away. I know that you've taken one if your bizarre dislikes to the idea, but I really don't see why you are trying to object to it.

quote:

---

Stop telling me what I'm saying is "not true," when the point is I'm giving my argument and I know you have a different opinion. Of course, it's what the argument is about, and I expect to have to try to prove it. That doesn't make my argument false.

---

The problem is that your opinions are contrary to the evidence - which you are largely ignoring. And when you do not ignore it you invent dubious excuses to discount it.Then there is the misrepresentation, which is something of a habit with you.

quote:

---

I'm sick of this excuse for "debate" which is nothing but saying your opinion is right and mine is a lie. Sick sick sick of it

---

I understand that you don't like the fact that you are being so thoroughly defeated. But that does not excuse this misrepresentation. You set out to defeat well-established science using ill-founded opinions without regard to the evidence. This result was pretty much inevitable. Trying to blame us for that - and trying to pretend that the evidence has nothing to do with it - is dishonest and unfair.

The first paragraph may be dealt with by pointing out that the unsubstantiated opinions of someone who regularly says things that really are ridiculous are hardly worth considering.

quote:

---

THOSE ARE ROCKS. Each rock slab covers the territory in which you believe its fossil contents once lived. Those fossilized creatures would have had no place to go when that "landscape" eventually disappeared.

---

The creatures found as fossils would generally be dead before they were buried - and it would be a long time after that when the material around them became rock. Long dead animals have no need of anywhere to live.Their descendants - if they had any - would, of course be living on the surface as it was in their time. Really, do you think that modern Egyptians live on the same surface of the Nile flood plain as their ancient ancestors did thousands of years ago ? Or do they live in the modern surface on top of all the sediment deposited by the regular flooding ?

quote:

---

Geology has shot itself in the foot with this. Consider the Chinle Formation of the Grand Staircase in Utahl, where there are found lots of fossils, many of them of dinosaurs. It extends over a huge area of the western US...

---

Your assessment, as ever, is hopelessly wrong. As the article says, the Chinle formation (which is a formation, not a single stratum) incorporates an environment consisting of lakes, river plains and wetlands.Interestingly you've pointed me to a refutation of another of your claims, The Wingate Sandstone - one of the formations directly above the Chinle is dated from the late Triassic into the Early Jurassic. So much for the idea that deposition stops at the boundaries between geological periods.The Wikipedia article on the Wingate Sandstone (linked from the Chinle formation article so you have no excuse for not reading it) says: That's desert, not deep ocean.The other, the Moenave formation is Jurassic, and there was uplift and erosion between the two. Need I point out that uplifting land is hardly likely to put it at the bottom of a deep ocean ?And the Moenave formation was deposited in the same range of environments as the Chinle, so obviously the animals that liked those environments could likely stay there.So, where exactly is this "deep ocean" ?(Of course the whole point would be silly anywhere. Faced with environmental change animals will move, adapt or die. This is not a problem.)

quote:

---

It was the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods I described on the other thread, both periods known for their dinosaur fossils on the west side of the Rockies, but Oops, during those time periods there is still nothing but "deep ocean" over there

---

If that is true then there should be many dinosaur fossils found in deep ocean deposits. Which I have no reason to believe. Given that you were hopelessly wrong about the Chinle formation - and you could easily gave found out by reading articles linked from the one you quoted I am not about to trust your unsupported word on this. Evidence please.

quote:

---

Look, what we actually have is the rock strata and that's ALL we have and we have LOTS of it, and there is absolutely nothing about it that suggests anything whatever occurred between the layers of rock. One sediment got laid down and not too long afterward another, up the entire stack. The former environments imputed to those rocks simply never existed

---

We've had enough evidence at this point to say that that is clearly false. If you won't see it, then too bad for you.

quote:

---

Nothing could have lived in the time periods covered by all that water, but nothing DID live

---

Except for the sea creatures found as fossils in the strata which genuinely were deposited on the seabed.

quote:

---

Every living thing was drowned and the proof of it is their fossilized remains in the strata.

---

Which is a genuinely ridiculous claim as shown in the original thread.Really why should we reject solid scientific conclusions which you CALL ridiculous when your objections really are ridiculous ?Edited by PaulK, : Fixed a couple of "corrections"

quote:

---

The deep ocean and the transgressing-regressing epeiric seas are detailed in the sixth edition of the textbook Historical Geology by two respected professors of Geology named Wicander and Monroe

---

Since you provide absolutely no information to check other than the implication that it directly followed the deposition of the Chinle formation - which turned out to be false - I rather doubt this. Especially coming from someone with a habit of misrepresenting even friendly sources.

quote:

---

Oh Paul, I don't expect you to EVER accept anything I say; fear not, your delusions are quite safe.

---

If you don't like people noticing you many errors the answer is to take more care to get things right - a lot more. Being nasty about it just encourages retaliation.

quote:

---

What??? Do you know how to read? Where did I say anything about "directly following the deposition of the Chinle formation?" All I said was that the Chinle Formation has a lot of dinosaur fossils, it's a Triassic deposit, and it covers a lot of territory west of the Rockies, which according to the textbook mentioned was under deep ocean during the Mesozoic time periods.

---

In other words you were being incredibly vague about when this supposed "deep ocean" was present. Why even mention the Chinle formation if this supposed "deep ocean" was in the distant future - millions of years later ? What possible relevance could that have to the dinosaurs living at the time when the Chinle formation was being deposited ?Of course the whole argument has other serious flaws in that it fails to state any real problem. Even if the distant descendants of the dinosaurs list hat had lived in the Chinle formation were wiped out because they had nowhere to go that would not, in itself be a problem. How could it be ?

quote:

---

What on earth are you blathering on about? You have a serious problem with reading a very simple description

---

Obviously I am looking very hard for something resembling a remotely sensible argument. If the "deep ocean" had directly followed the Chinle formation there would be some semblance of relevance, but it seems not.

quote:

---

The Chinle formation was mentioned as an example of a very extensive formation of fossil beds in the supposed Triassic Period, which supposedly indicates a large population of living things in that time period; but there was deep ocean covering that part of North America during the Triassic Period -- and the Jurassic and the Cretaceous.

---

But there wasn't deep ocean covering that part of North America when either the Chinle formation or the succeeding formations were deposited.

quote:

---

The point is that Geology is contradicting itself.

---

You could have said as much. But so far that is mere assertion. We don't have anything but your word for it and you have a record of misrepresenting your sources. To any rational person this contradiction is almost certainly an error on your part. And you have given no reason to think otherwise.

quote:

---

I don't respect you enough to bother to produce the quotes from the book in question. Think whatever evil-minded thing you want to think.

---

I will simply note that evasiveness is a common sign of dishonesty.

quote:

---

According to the usual description that would be the case; the point is that they say that but they also have a whole section on the geological development of North America that has water covering the very areas where the fossil beds are found.

---

They may well have water covering that area at some point, but not when the Chinle formation was being deposited, and very likely not deep ocean (if you had said that there was an eperic sea in the Cretaceous it would have been quite plausible - but obviously irrelevant to dinosaurs living in the Triassic)

quote:

---

Take it or leave it Paul. There is nothing reasonable about anything you ever say about me and my arguments anyway. It's all mean-spirited evilspeak that I get from you. If you want to check out the textbook reference, as I said I believe there are other editions of it onli

---

Considering that you throw nastier and less justified attacks my way your sentiment rings rather hollow.

The only online copies I can see look like dodgy pirate sites. No thanks, for both moral and prudential reasons.If anyone has a copy and can find out why Faith thinks that they say that the area of the Chinle formation was under deep ocean at the time the formation was being deposited (Colorado plateau, late Triassic) please let me know.

The pages aren't there when I look. It explicitly states that pages 8-429 are excluded from the preview.

quote:

---

Gosh you are just never at a loss for a nasty accusation, are you? That sort of thing must make up at least 90% of your communications to me. No wonder I don't respect you.

---

I invite people to read my posts and come to their own conclusions.