Summations Only

I do? What are you talking about? Lots of things occur today that couldn't have happened if the Geo Timescale is correct. Which is the whole point I'm focused on.

There was already an olive tree which implies other trees and plant life had survived. There were also probably still provisions on the ark. Seeds too, that could have been immediately planted. I've also modified the idea that all the land was scoured though much of it must have been from all that heavy rain.But you are talking about a large expanse of nothing but sediment, the sediment that eventually became the large expanse of rock. Where's the comparison?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No idea what you are talking about. I've been keeping the time factor in mind all along, it's what makes or breaks the standard geo scenario

---

Since the material you quote makes no mention of the time factor at all it is rather obvious that you didn't even read it.And I would say that it is also obvious that you are not taking adequate account of the time factor because it invalidates your argument,

quote:

---

If there's any period of time in that scenario when nothing could live then the scenario is kaput

---

Excepting the time before life that is correct. However that does not mean that making desperate and less than half-baked attempts to find such a time is a good idea. It is far better to understand first and avoid foolish mistakes.

quote:

---

If you skip from sedimentation to landscape of course you skip over such periods, but they are what need accounting for.

---

The reason I say that you should not mix up lithification with where the animals went. By doing that you are skipping over vast spans of time.However the claim that we are skipping over periods when there was nowhere habitable on Earth, however, begs the question. First it must be established that there were such periods, and you have not even come close to providing any sort of sensible argument that there was any such time,

quote:

---

When one landscape is gone, buried, no longer livable, any creature still living needs a place to live. though really nothing could be living at that point anyway). If all that's happening is the build-up of sediment to a great depth burying their landscape their choice is to keep living on sediment or die. Nothing can live on mere sediment so they die. And if they die that kind of kills the Geo Timescale which has creatures living on or creatures evolving from creatures.

---

If you don't realise how foolish and ignorant that is by now then I can only suggest that you go back and READ the posts in this thread. Especially edge's.The sediment builds up slowly, just as it does today. Creatures went on living on the surface just as they do today. There is no problem, we know that there is no problem because it is all happening today with no problem.

Sorry, the way you talk to me does not inspire me to read anything you've ever written. If you want me to understand it then explain it again. I have no idea what your post was meant to convey except the usual insults.

quote:

---

There was already an olive tree which implies other trees and plant life had survived. There were also probably still provisions on the ark. Seeds too, that could have been immediately planted. I've also modified the idea that all the land was scoured though much of it must have been from all that heavy rain.

---

Nevertheless you are still proposing a disaster far more extreme in magnitude and coverage than anything propose by mainstream geology. Even the massive volcanic eruptions that formed the Deccan and Siberian Traps only covered a small part of the Earth.If your Flood could not render the Earth uninhabitable then how could much smaller events do so ? When there is far. Ore time to recover, too. It just makes no sense at all.

quote:

---

But you are talking about a large expanse of nothing but sediment, the sediment that eventually became the large expanse of rock. Where's the comparison?

---

The same sediment that you propose was dumped on the surface in less than a year. The comparison is rather obvious. You propose a far more rapid and devastating event that has not left us with an uninhabitable planet despite all that.

quote:

---

Sorry, the way you talk to me does not inspire me to read anything you've ever written. If you want me to understand it then explain it again. I have no idea what your post was meant to convey except the usual insults.

---

Believe me, there were no insults there.Let me make the crucial point again. Sedimentation is going on now. It does not automatically make the land uninhabitable. Often it contributes to the fertility. As in the example of the Nile valley, which made Egypt a great power in the ancient world and kept Rome fed.This simple fact refutes your whole argument.

Faith, that evades my question. I'm asking you what happens to the landscape if it is not buried. Or seafloor. And the problem is? What do you mean by 'so many'?But of course they were buried in the continuing rain of sediments.Because they were dead.The living ones avoided burial. On the seafloor.I still don't see your problem with this even though you've repeated it dozens of time. What you are asking makes no sense. Yes, at the water-sediment interface. It is always there for long periods of time. Anything actually growing will avoid burial. We have all answered this question dozens of times. They remained on the seafloor. And you have never refuted it. You just keep asking the same question.Faith, I'm beginning to think that you are being disagreeable just for the purpose of being disagreeable. That is not a desirable trait.

It does seem to be implicit in your posts that the normal sedimentary processes that we can see burying organic remains today should have caused the complete extinction of everything.

Faith has a profound misunderstanding of natural processes, but I cannot seem to fathom exactly what it is. I keep thinking that the light is going to come on some day and we would get over this hurdle of ignorance. It's just not happening.But you are correct. Time seems to be a factor. It still appears that Faith thinks the seafloor (or land surface) simple freezes at some point in time and then the whole process starts over with new ingredients including sediment composition and life forms.I'm pretty sure that she thinks the Tapeats sand became sandstone before the Bright Angel muds started to deposit. This would possibly help in the YExplanation that the Grand Canyon could be carved out so soon after deposition of a mile of sediments, but it's kind of silly.Geologists are taught that each bedding plane represents a discontinuity in deposition, whether a hiatus or change in composition. In effect, each bedding plane is a seafloor (in marine sediments) or 'landscape' (in terrigenous sediments). Often, they are called paraconformities in marine sedimentary rocks and disconformities in terrigenous rocks. In the paraconformity case, creatures live on the surface. Some die and are entombed while others continue to live and avoid burial. Note the cross-section of an erosional channel in the disconformity diagram. In this case, fossils may be preserved in the stream sediments or eroded away.But we've said this dozens of times and I doubt that anything we say will break Faith's stubbornness. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

remember Faith is not discussing or debating but rather proselytizing.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Originally Faith seems to have assumed that lithification occurred at the surface, but really I was making a rather simpler point.The time between the point when a particular stratum was the surface and the time it really starts to lithified is so long that it does not really make sense to talk about them together, as Faith often has. It would be far more sensible to look at points closer in time, consider actual cases, using the actual geology and fossils where there is a change rather than a hiatus in deposition. That might actually prove enlightening - which may be one reason why Faith avoids this reasonable course.But the closest Faith comes is to speak in generalisations which seem to be based on assumption rather than fact.

quote:

---

I do? What are you talking about?

---

You are proposing that ordinary sedimentation, much less drastic than your version of the Flood (obviously, since it is the same material but deposited over a vastly linger period of time) must render the land uninhabitable. That is the core of your argument. How strange that you cannot even recognise it.

quote:

---

Lots of things occur today that couldn't have happened if the Geo Timescale is correct. Which is the whole point I'm focused on.

---

But you are arguing that the sort of events that do happen today must have had consequences we do not see today. That is not exactly a sensible argument.

People seem to be jumping all over when answering you. Maybe if we slow down and go step by step.First: Look around you.
All everyone is proposing is that at every time things were happening just like the are today.
The Mississippi is dumping feet of sand, slit and mud every year. But clams, crayfish and the like can still live there. The deserts of the south west are sand (which you said is uninhabitable) but I have been there and the are many, many kinds of plants and animals living there. The sand moves and burys some and uncovers others but they survice while this is going on. The ooze at the seabottom which you said is uninhabitable has lots of things living on and in it (not so many as the Amazon rain forest but lots still).
The Rockies are eroding and spreading material into the foothills and prairies.
Rarely (on a human scale) a volcano blankets the land with ash (as Mt. St. Helens did) but within days some things are alive there and in weeks, months and years life carries on. Lava flows over parts of Hawaii but these rocks make excellent, fertile places for plants to grow over the years. Even these events don't kill everything.
Those processes are exactly the same thing that everyone is proposing has been going on around the dinosaurs and everything else that has lived.
The slow piling up of soil that gets inches, then feet then 10's of feet deep doesn't interfere with things living on now and it never did.
So no one understands what you imagine was happening that makes it all so impossible.

You are correct.A complete rejection of uniformitarianism has to be part of the explanation for this disagreement. I would like to hear from Faith how things were so different during the fludde, considering that everything we see in the geological record looks exactly like things that we see forming now.

The closest I have been able to get from her about what was different is still only dogma and apologetics. from Message 65 in Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like..Actual evidence is not to be believed if it conflicts with her interpretation of the Bible stories.Edited by jar, : hit wrong key