Summations Only

May I recommend that you and Dr. A carefully read what Percy posted as Admin above. This thread is done.

I have read it and replied to it and also pointed out that I had asked additional questions.Now if you wish to simply admit that your flood model cannot explain any of the issues any of us might present then YOUR participation can certainly once again end as usual.But the questions will remain and hopefully someone will come along who is willing to learn. With that possibility in mind I will once again post the following.Let's give this another try. In this I will begin by postulating Faith's Young Earth time line.Begin with small baby steps.Faith (or some other person who still believes one of the Biblical flood myths actually happened), do you think a flood like one of the flood tales in the Bible happened?Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleEdited by jar, : appalin spallin

I have carefully read it and he does not seem to suggest that but he does suggest that I and Dr A clarify our objections.However, I read your comments differently. In fact you seem to be suggesting that the truth is an unimportant detail, and thus everybody should believe your assertions.If you disagree then you will have to explain why pointing out massive falsehoods should be considered "nit-picking"Edited by PaulK, : Corrected initial sentence

This is a science thread, where a viewpoint's merits are measured according to scientifically gathered and evaluated evidence. Participants in science threads must be willing to have their views subjected to scientific scrutiny.

You should more carefully read my Message 172 yourself. I said to Jar, 'If you have no "next question" then this thread should enter summation mode.' He then provided a "next question": I told Jar earlier that this question would just go over very familiar ground - you've outlined your views many times. I will tell him again.

Unless you already know all the followup steps I'm not sure how you can be convinced that it will go over very familiar ground.I hope that you will let me try to work through this since simply providing all of the information in on large package (regardless of who provides the information) has always resulted in Faith simply dismissing everything.Perhaps by allowing and investigating areas where there might be agreement some progress might be made, if not with Faith then perhaps with someone else who is reading but not participating actively.

Obviously Faith thinks "a flood like one of the flood tales in the Bible happened." This thread should continue the process you described in Message 1: You first asked, "How did the flood sort things so that there is a layer where there are no chordates while layers above do have chordates?" Faith has responded that she has no answer to that question, so it's time to move on to the next question. When I promoted this thread I assumed you had a progression of questions in mind, maybe I should have asked about them up front. If there's no "next question" then perhaps this thread should be put into summation mode.

Did you read Message 152 and Message 186?

Yes, I recall Message 152 now, it's been ignored. Rephrasing a little:

Well then it's kind of weird that the deposits we see forming in the present look exactly like those of the geological record.I will admit that the continental crust of the Archean exposed in shield areas looks very different from what we see elsewhere, but that really was a looooong time ago. In fact, that's another thing the YEC simply cannot explain.

That's a future question but not the question in message 152. This question is even more basic.How does a flood story explain the fact the there are layers where only sea life is found while higher layers show both land and sea life?How does a world-wide flood sort out just sea life in one layer but show sea and land based life in a higher layer?How can one flood sort just sea life into one layer but also sort sea and land life into another layer and then layer them in that order; just sea life in one and then sea and land life in the higher layer?BUT, after I posted that I realized it is simply too complex and so will be ignored as it was. That was why I decided to try to change the process to work from those areas where agreement might be possible.

It is also evidence for the modern understanding of geology. It is also evidence for old ages.Please give us something that is diagnostic of young ages and a global flood and nothing else.Making assertions is not evidence.

Oh well, this thread got even worse today. Mere assertions of establishment science are treated as evidence, repeated statements are accepted though they had already been answered many times. I'm treating this thread as closed, doesn't much matter what anybody else does with it since it's all just one loud chorus of aren't we wonderful and right.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK I respect your decision. OK, I'll leave it open unless any Science admins have a problem with it. If so, feel free to override me.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

Respecting her decision to stop posting is fine but giving the impression that you accept her blatant misrepresentations certainly gives the wrong impression.For Faith to claim that she has answered many times is meaningless unless it is specifically pointed out that she did admit she did not have a model to explain the question in the OP and has not even tried to answer the second question or participate in the slow step by step attempt based on an initial acceptance of a young earth age (which was the position all the scientists had until they actually examined the evidence).