Summations Only

Your explanations for things are becoming increasingly divorced from reality.This is also a good part of why most folks pay no attention to the claims made by creationists.

The rocks are still there, Faith. This is why there are sedimentary rocks.

You say the absolutely silliest things. It is as though you are totally disconnected from reality.No one but you has ever said anything that stupid.Let me try yet again to keep it simple enough that you can understand.Nothing unusual happens. Things continue just as they are today and have been happening on Earth for Billions of years.Go back and slowly read Message 19. All of your questions are answered there and the process fully explained.Look at the maps linked in Message 136 and Message 378 and Message 380.Change has been continuous since the Earth took form.As the land changed critters moved.With change critters moved but the life span of even the longest lived critter is still very short. Life never started all over again and your fantasy as expressed above is simply silly.The time periods are a human construct we created to aid in understanding but for the critters living during those times it was of no more significance than pointing out that you are living during the Holocene period.The two significant factors though are:that the geological processes have remained constant over the whole life of the Earth.that the biological critters have not remained constant over time and the remains are grouped by common characteristics in an ordered fashion.Your claim of "Higher on the evolutionary ladder according to y'all, but if the whole thing is gone, kaput, extinct, fossilized in the rock, there's no life left to evolve." is more nonsense and not anything anyone has told you.There is no such thing as higher evolved. Let me repeat; there is no such thing as higher evolved.There is change. Not higher change and lower change but just change. And the sole judge of how effective the change was is simply whether or not the species lives long enough to reproduce. Stop posting stupid stuff like the above.

I'm not giving my own ideas, I'm giving a parody, I'm describing what must be the case if the standard theory is true. Absurd isn't it?

Of course the rock wasn't replaced, I wasn't clear enough there. The landscape was replaced by a new landscape, that became rock in its turn.By the way I'm glad you affirm original horizontality Perhaps you are unaware that Percy has declared it false and said I can't use the idea.

No.

quote:

---

I'm describing what must be the case if the standard theory is true.

---

No, you certainly are not. What you are describing sounds more like Flood geology. There I think we can legitimately ask how anything survived all the earlier disasters to be alive and making tracks in the later stages.

It's irrelevant if you don't agree with it. That is what I am doing.

Interestingly, when the illogic of the geo scenario of rock-landscape-rock is faced, the only possible explanation of the facts IS the Flood.

is there any chance of sensible discussion here ?If you can't be bothered to understand the opposing viewpoint you could at least stop making up stupid strawman.

What I was doing was following out the logic of the Geological position, not my own. I came to that conclusion from the evidence I gave. No surprise to me, standard Geology is indeed disconnected from reality.

I believe the evidence is clear and logical for the conclusions I have drawn. I know I need to refine it some.

I suggest actually learning about the evidence before jumping to conclusions based heavily on your own biases. You make that mistake over and over again and all you are doing is wasting everyone's time. Especially yours, since you only hurt your own case.There is absolutely no reason to think that all life is exterminated at the end of each geological period. I suppose you are making your usual,error of assuming that the geological periods are sharply defined, and that the changeover from life typical of one period to the next is an equally sharp transition. If so, that is a mistake, not evidence.

And as you have proven and admitted the Biblical flood cannot explain anything.The Biblical flood is just a couple myths.Edited by jar, : fix quote box

In that case, your understanding of the mainstream geological position is hopelessly distorted. You have given us no evidence other than to say that mainstream historical geology is impossible.When I ask you why, you say that 'I should know'. That is not an explanation, it is an assertion.