Summations Only

If you know the truth, why are you denying it ?The science of geology exists, Faith. It rejected the young Earth and the Flood because the evidence showed otherwise. This is fact. Denying it only discredits you and your faith.

quote:

---

There's no need to keep arguing with my beliefs. We will continue to have the occasional exchange of dogmas I'm sure but it's best just to leave it at that.

---

I don't think we should. Not if you are really trying to debate honestly. Denying clear facts just because you don't like them is the opposite of that. If you cannot even admit that he science of geology exists then too bad for you. You might as well leave right now because you are too mired in falsehood and pride to stand a chance - of winning or even engaging in genuinely honest discussion.

quote:

---

...there is also no contradiction between belief in God and science

---

I'll agree with that. But you don't - not really. Hurling lies and slander at the science that contradicts your beliefs pretty much proves. Every time you insist that you don't reject science you go and disprove your own claim.

How can you believe that the evidence supports you when you put so much effort into trying to pretend it doesn't exist ?Seriously Faith, denying reality is not a winning strategy. Nor is complaining that your opponents disagree with you.

quote:

---

Usually people are trying to prove there IS loose dirt between layers

---

Really ? Or is this one of those things that just "seems true" to you (and isn't at all)Evidence please.

quote:

---

There's nothing for me to acknowledge that I can see.

---

Well, you could admit that your statement was silly and wrong, but I guess you refuse to see that. (Really, why would the soil remain loose and unlithified if the sediment above it did not ?)

Try thinking about what you are saying. The only person who should expect loose fragments between strata is you, with your bizarre ideas about angular unconformities.

quote:

---

what statement was silly and wrong?

---

The idea that we should expect to find loose soil between strata. Surely that would only happen if modern soil managed to infiltrate the rock.

quote:

---

You are certainly not willing to give an inch on anything I say, your remarks are particularly harsh, acid in the face. I don't get this, really I don't.

---

My words are often less harsh than you deserve. You go around pronouncing the daft things you make up as facts. You harshly and falsely condemn those who disagree with you - often simply in an attempt to discredit their statements. You aggressively defend your errors - how long did it take to get you to admit that you were wrong about the Chinle Formation ? And you get hurt when people point out that you are wrong and that you are reluctant to admit your errors ?What amazing hypocrisy.

quote:

---

Most of the time I haven't a clue why I'm being trashed and accused.

---

Usually because there is good reason in your own posts.Seriously you wonder why I suggest that there are things that "seem true" to you - and aren't ? How about this: From this thread. And followed up not by any actual examples but one piece of bizarre speculation and some "maybes" - none of which had been mentioned befor.

quote:

---

Old Earthers ARE deceived and wrong. Sorry, that's the way it is.

---

Then why are you forced to resort to misrepresentations, falsehoods and denying the evidence and the facts ?

quote:

---

And what you are overlooking is that all those scientific institutions I'm "spitting" on are doing far worse: they are spitting on God, THE source of all truth.

---

And that is sheer unjustified nastiness - far, far worse than the criticisms you complain about. Is it any wonder people say "harsh" things about you ?Thank you for providing such a timely demonstration.

Of course, I already pointed out that it was possible for bodies to drift out to sea - without any knowledge of these fossils.And if we only find a few such remains amidst large amounts of fossilised sea life that would be the sensible explanation.This is why I asked for large numbers of dinosaur remains in marine strata - because if you are trying to show that there is no relation between the environment inferred from the geologic record and the fossil life found there a few expected anomalies are simply not good enough.

quote:

---

Sorry I was not clear. I thought you'd all remember the seismic image of a jagged gash deep in the earth which was interpreted as a former canyon, later filled in by sediment, sand I think. I believe it was presented as an image that converted someone named Morton somethingorother from a YEC to an Old Earther.

---

While it is likely that the image came from Glen Mortons site, Morton was hardly "converted" by it. Morton actually worked as a geologist and discovered that the Flood Geology that he had been taught by the ICR was worthless - unlike the geology offered by mainstream science.

quote:

---

The problem is that the typical depiction of the Geo column where the time periods are shown identifies the period occupied by the strata as covering specific spans of time. Since a span of time is represented only by a slab of rock it is the rock that is dated to that range of time, and that range of time covers multiple, even hundreds of millions of years, before and after which other sedimentary rocks are identified with another many millions of years. And on top of that they are identified as specific Time Periods and given names like Carboniferous and Triassic and so on. Because of these designations it is very hard not to think of these time periods as clearly separated.

---

But as I have previously pointed out, this is not true. The rocks do not neatly fit into the periods of the geological timescale. The Wingate Sandstone, for instance crosses the boundary between the Triassic and the Jurassic Message 61

quote:

---

This highlights the problem I note over and over that to my mind utterly belies the whole OE/evolutionist system of thought. There is no way reality would have arranged itself in terms of separate sedimentary rocks representing ancient time periods. The idea is simply preposterous

---

Reality has done no such thing. Nobody says that it has. It is just your misreading of diagrams - as usual.

quote:

---

Any idea of time gradations through series after series of fossil remains identified with evolutionary progress SHOULD expect a blurry continuum, not a discrete stack of rocks with clearly identifiable life forms.

---

Reality is considerably more blurry than you suggest. I also not that the fossil record is rather spotty in many respects. And if you really think that evolution has anything to do with the geological column at any region as you seem to imply, you are even more mistaken than I imagined.

quote:

---

There's enough evidence that water forms layers and if it sorts sediments we have to assume it also sorts other things

---

Appealing to a ridiculously simplistic overview while ignoring the details we know is hardly a sensible argument. In fact I see it as a strong indication that you realise that the evidence disproves the flood. Nobody desperately seeks excuses to pretend that they are right unless they know that the evidence is against them.

quote:

---

Yeah yeah yeah, again an ad hoc attempt to mop up the incredible craziness of the Geo Timescale.

---

That is a very odd way to describe a simple fact.

There is nothing civilised in pretending that you arguments are any better than they are,If your arguments rely on an exceedingly superficial and simplistic examination of the evidence - and reject any deeper examination - then they can only be regarded as an attempted deception. What possible reason could there be for a refusal to look further, but the expectation that the whole thing will fall apart ?If you cannot accept the thoroughly deserved criticisms of your arguments then you are not worth taking seriously.

With regard to the Wingate being an exception there Is an important issue that I wish to point out:In the absence of directly datable material - which is not that common - we simply have no way of knowing whether the divide between two strata corresponds to a change of geological period or not. The division between the strata itself is the only convenient marker at that location.In all likelihood, then, the situation is typically that we are able to mostly date a formation to one period, but unless we find clear evidence from a later period - and we may not because the transition itself would be fuzzy and the evidence we need might not even be present, let alone eaisily found, the formation would be assigned to one period even if it happened to straddle the boundary.

quote:

---

It's funny how people just take the dating system for granted as if you could know how old something is yourself and agree out of your own knowledge.

---

Of course, even those of us who are neither geologists or archaeologists can have an understanding of the methods and an appreciation of the work that has gone into making them reliable.Which is why we are not going to be easily convinced that they do not work. Mere assertion or that fact that the dates contradict beliefs with little to no supporting evidence are hopelessly inadequate as arguments.

quote:

---

I don't know, forty days of extremely heavy rain plus the fountains of the deep sending sea level over the land seems like plenty of scouring to me

---

Which would wipe out all the land animals, right ? Genesis 7:17-23 says so.So you are telling us that these tracks were made, and survived during that period ? While the land was being scoured ?

quote:

---

I don't know yet if I accept the interpretation of forty days to accomplish the whole Flood; I just discovered that's how some people

---

The point is not about "accomplishing the whole Flood", the point is that the animals are all killed in the 40 days. Which, given your description, sounds pretty much inevitable.