Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

For a theory to be valid it must fit all the evidence, not some conclusion you have reached a priori.In science, a theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts. But, a theory also must be tested against the facts and survive those tests. And, a theory must also make predictions which in turn are tested and survive those tests. You have done neither.What you have is not a theory. It is pure speculation designed to support a religious belief. Calling what you do "apologetics" would be much more accurate.You are simply unwilling and unqualified to do anything resembling science, and you have shown this time and again with your posts.Edited by Coyote, : speeling

And rightly so. That means it doesn't have to kowtow to any of the made-up deities that humans have been saddled with for millennia. Adhering to belief, rather than evidence, as you do, of course you think that. But when one studies the evidence, and follows where it leads, the opposite is true--as I have noted on several occasions, you are doing the exact opposite of science.

You've been telling us how things have to be in geology and you are just now discovering what the G.U. is?Your credibility would have dropped a few more notches, if that were possible.What a joke!

Faith has to check with, and develop, her personal interpretation of scripture before she can address any real-world evidence that you present.Your evidence doesn't matter. All that matters to Faith is scripture and her interpretation of it.Faith doesn't know what the Great Unconformity is? No problem, its wrong anyway. And on learning what the definition is, she may choose to accept it or not, depending on how it affects her beliefs. Your evidence doesn't matter.She doesn't know any geology? No problem, anything in geology that contradicts scripture is wrong. Faith doesn't care about the evidence, if one fantasy gets too much pushback she'll try another, and yet another, and so on, eventually cycling back to the first again as if nobody will notice. Belief is more powerful than evidence any day.This resembles the traditional Christian apologetics. According to wiki, Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology which attempts to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.But, can we coin a new word for what we see here, Christian apologistics? I propose the term Christian apologistics as a field of Christian theology which attempts to present a multitude of irrational bases for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.And for this new term, Faith has earned the honor of being the poster-child.

No, it limits you to those statements.It has no effect on science at all.

The problem is not that you are using simple English, it is that you are rejecting established science on the basis of religious belief.This leads you to make statements, come up with definitions, and argue fine points that have long since been settled in science--just because you can't accept the evidence.It wouldn't matter whether you used simple English or the finest technical terms--your whole approach is to argue against established science, much of it up to 200 years old.The problem is compounded by lack of knowledge of these technical fields, and absolute rejection of the findings they have made.It is no wonder you have problems communicating: But I don't think simple English is the solution.

And the Egyptians, whose civilization and form of writing date back at least 5400 years, failed to mention all of that volcanism.Come to think of it, they didn't mention the flood either.And somehow they lived through all of it, as biblical scholars place the flood at about 4350 years ago. Hmmmm.

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."Alice

You can make that claim all you want, but you aren't convincing anyone. I wonder how much you are convincing yourself.You have already claimed that only the bible represents evidence to you, so why do you even try to deal with science? I think it is in an attempt to bolster your beliefs--you have to keep fooling yourself that there is no evidence lest your beliefs begin to crumble.The are whole libraries full of evidence, representing 200 years and more of geology. You can no more hand-wave all of that away than you can walk to the moon.

Don't be such a mindless zealot.You know that statement is untrue, so why do you persist in such nonsense?You have been presented with a lot of evidence and you just attempt to hand-wave it away, as if that would make it go away. It doesn't.Your "belief" has been shown to be in error--flat out wrong. OK, you don't accept that.But your denial of evidence is not evidence, it's just laughably and demonstrably wrong.Do you have evidence (other than religious belief) that you can share with us? Do you have any evidence that your belief describes anything approximating reality?

We no longer have a need to "understand" what you've said on this thread or any other.You have made yourself perfectly clear over the years. We got the message a long time ago: "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."Any real world evidence slides off like water off a duck. Science is just something for you to try to use as a cover for your beliefs, even though what you do is the exact opposite of science.I really don't know why we waste time trying to show you the evidence--you won't accept it anyway.A mind like a steel trap--rusted shut!

And we need some explanation of why, when scientists started looking, everything suddenly came to a screeching halt and resumed the nice sedate speed that we see today.

Faith, we love you but...

dwise 1 -- your excellent discussion of how scientists think hypothetically and then test their hypotheses misses the point of what Faith is doing.What Faith means by "thinking hypothetically" is coming up with alternate explanations for scientific explanations--in other words, "what-ifs."If she can come up with a "what-if" for a given situation, to her way of thinking that alternate explanation can be given equal or greater weight, and negates the scientific explanation. We have seen that time and again in these threads.And if, by some chance, that "what-if" can be successfully disproved in these threads, then new "what-ifs" are a dime a dozen. So round and round we go.As Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

30 posts since this morning! And presumably still getting nowhere (I haven't bothered to even read them).I'm abandoning this thread as a total waste of time.Bah!