Summations Only

Is my mind is playing tricks on me? Can I no longer do simple math? Because it looks like 60 messages were posted to this thread in just the last two hours.Assuming I'm not crazy, and not speaking as a moderator but just as a concerned participant, if these are all constructive messages then that's great, but if this volume of messages instead reflects a thread spiraling out of control into insult and nonsense then I hope it stops.Apologies if this is really a math error, I'm being called to dinner, can't check the math again.--Percy

I get 13 including the one to which I'm replying.

Oh, thank God, thanks. I see what happened. My watch says it's May 1, but it's really May 2, and I was replying to a message from May 1 at 3:43 PM that was 60 messages ago, so I thought all 60 messages happened since then.Watch is mechanical, thinks every month is 31 days, has to be adjusted manually after any month that's not.--Percy

If the overall argument is the aggregate of all the little bits of argument, then throwing away one little bit of argument makes the overall argument less strong. If Moose believes what you just said (and he gave your message a cheer, so I assume he does) then he's incorrect about the possibility of rapid sea transgressions creating the strata of the geologic record. He might want to reply to my Message 2381 so we could discuss what he really meant at greater length. Accelerated sea transgressions are wrong for reasons analogous to why accelerated radioactive decay is wrong and accelerated evolution is wrong. Probably the biggest problem with accelerated sea transgressions is that fine sediments take a considerable time to fall out of suspension.The key principle is that simply speeding up a process affects all the interdependencies with other processes and it just doesn't work. For a simple example consider accelerated traffic flows as a solution to traffic jams. Seems like a great idea until someone points out that stopping distances remain the same and centrifugal forces rounding curves haven't changed and the maximum speed of cars hasn't changed and people's reaction times haven't changed and the increased kinetic energy would make accidents more deadly and so forth and so on. I don't know why you say it has nothing to do with the Flood argument. Moose explicitly said it was about the Flood model in his Message 2306: Back to your message: It's also untrue. I've agreed with you plenty of times. For example, I agreed with you about not seeing any point to the term "system", that it seemed redundant to "period", see Message 2039 (you didn't reply, no surprise there). It would make no sense to disagree with a fact just because you mentioned it in support of the flood. For example, you could cite the fact that Mount Ararat exists as evidence that the Bible's flood story is true, and while I would disagree with your conclusions I would absolutely agree with you that Mount Ararat exists while not weakening my position on the flood at all. One can't disagree with what is true without weakening one's own arguments. The reason you make so little headway in the form of concurrence on any major or minor point is because you have a knack for being wrong about just about everything. I didn't say it did, and you're not responding to what I said. In that post, Message 2306, Moose took the position that you were less wrong about Walther's Law than I was. I still don't understand what he was getting at, but I'd like to. I don't think either one is involved here, not objective truth or emotional bias. It's about what evidence and rationale can be brought to bear in support of a position.--Percy

You still do not understand how Walther's Law works. I included another explanation in Message 2526 that specifically addresses the misunderstanding represented in what you say above, but you haven't responded yet. Let me know if you have any questions.--Percy

How do you know whether what Genesis doesn't describe happened naturally or supernaturally? For example, the distribution of fossils in the geologic column - how did you determine that that happened naturally rather than supernaturally?--Percy

As has been explained many times, by definition any sedimentation (and I'll include volcanic deposits) occurring anywhere on Earth is adding to the local stratigraphic column. Any life buried by that sedimentation is a candidate for possible fossilization.Why do you think life buried by a global flood 4500 years ago can be fossilized but life buried today cannot? Wikipedia has a section on fossilization processes.--Percy

I haven't read further downthread, but I think that a big part of the misunderstanding here is the lack of an obvious scale indicator in the photo. I think Faith is seeing that photo as a large area of substantial ridges and valleys. I see a relatively small area with a relief of maybe a couple of feet maximum.Faith also doesn't see the "ridges and valleys" as being differentially weathered near vertical sedimentary bedding. Looks to be a slightly plunging tightly folded syncline to me. Maybe a graywacke/slate sequence.Moose

In an earlier post I calculated that the volume of all the sediments currently on land are only 10% of the ocean's volume, so its effect on life washed into the ocean wouldn't be that great. And as I mentioned, whether a corpse initially floats is serendipitous, dependent upon whether the lungs fill with water or remain filled with air.Faith also hasn't yet explained why sea life would die. She attributed it to the sediments suffocating them, but as I said, the sediments would be only 10% of the ocean's volume.Faith also hasn't explained how the ocean's original salinity returned (not to mention where all the extra water went).--Percy

True Dat, but in Faith's majic flood stuff doesn't get deposited in the oceans; it gets deposited on the continents.And remember that in Faith's universe it is not just the sediments on land today but all the material above the Vishnu schist.

Since not all the sea life died I believe it was the sediments in the water that killed the ones that did die.

Yah, I should have chosen a better image, but it was so interesting ... sorry about that.That's the ocean in the background.But the image shows how Faith's 'landscapes' are demolished by transgressing seas and how angular unconformities form.

I do not believe in a "supergenome" although I considered that possibility for a while. I now explain the great genetic diversity before the Flood and therefore in the saved creatures on the ark, as due to the much less junk DNA, probably almost none, and therefore a lot more functioning genes.

That particular argument was a lightbulb going on, brilliant.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not exactly sure what the salt does but there are quite a few cross sections where the strata sag as a unit when there is a salt layer in the mix. Looks like it percolates down through the sediments when dissolved, rises up through the sediments as domes when some condition is reached, enough of it?But it isn't just the salt that causes the "erosion" I see. There's a lot of limestone and dolomite and other soluble rocks in the stack, all suggesting the "erosion" occurred after deposition.