Summations Only

What personal comments?Identify the problem, then formulate a plan to solve the problem.Or prevent any possible solution.And BTW, you did express frustration and confusion about your own ideas because it's too much for you to keep in your head all at once. Nobody can keep an entire large and complex idea in their head all at once, which is why we have techniques such as "divide and conquer" and which is why I offered that technique to you. And of course you ignored it.

Evolution over millions of yearsMy reasoning for why millions of years would kill off all life is that microevolutionary changes only need a few hundred years and in some cases such as the Pod Mrcaru lizards less than thirty years, to effect dramatic changes. I've many times argued how evolution can't continue beyond the boundary of the Kind, but if it could, even those changes shouldn't need more than some thousands of years. You should be able to get mammals from reptiles within some such time frame, oh give it tens or even hundreds of thousands, though even that is overkill, but millions is ridiculous. I suppose if things did go on living and changing that long none of them would even remotely resemble anything living today. I mentioned the trilobites that are found in several strata in different forms. The usual idea is that they changed over millions of years. On something like the Pod Mrcaru time frame a few decades at most should do it, oh give it a few centuries if you must. But of course the layers do not represent time periods at all, just the deposition of sediments according to the movements of the waves and tides in the Flood. (And the reason nothing would go on living for millions of years is that the Fall has brought about the progressive deterioration of the entire Creation. If you want evidence for that consider the number of extinctions being tallied)Walther's Law and the FloodWalther's Law explains sedimentary layering by increasing depths of sea water, that makes it a very useful concept for the Flood whether the order is perfect or not. However, RAZD put up a post a long time ago showing how it accounts for the layers in the Grand Canyon. But it may not be necessary for the order to be perfect to account for the Flood or phases of the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I appreciate your idea and I appreciated it when you first gave it. I don't really know where to start to break it down although I like the idea very much. Maybe I'll eventually be able to do that. Right now I'm letting Stile's scenario determine the stages of the problem. Depending on where that goes when he gets back I may make a bigger effort to do as you suggest.

I am afraid that those demonstrate the real reasons for your problems here.The fact that evolution has apparently proceeded very quickly in one single case is certainly not a reason to think that millions of years would kill off all life. Aside from the mistaken idea that an atypical case should be taken as typical there is the much larger problem that there is no connection to the conclusion. You simply don't give any way of getting from this rapid evolution to the loss of all life.

quote:

---

Walther's Law and the Flood

​

Walther's Law explains sedimentary layering by increasing depths of sea water, that makes it a very useful concept for the Flood whether the order is perfect or not.

---

More correctly Walther's law explains certain sequences of sedimentary layers by the environmental changes associated with changes in water level. But you say that those are an "illusion" so obviously Walther's law must also be an illusion. After all if the Flood is dumping literal tons of sediment without any relation to the local environment then obviously Walther's law isn't going to apply.So, no, Walther's Law counts far more against the Flood than for it.

Once again Faith that is just refuted by reality.From Message 1044:

quote:

---

It's interesting that the "Neat" layers seen in the Grand Canyon are actually marine and terrestrial, show several incursions, record an ancient desert and quite a few unconformities which are absolute evidence of periods when a layer was at the surface and eroded away.

​

From the Wiki entry on the Geology of the Grand Canyon:

​

quote:

---

The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores in western North America. Both marine and terrestrial sediments are represented, including fossilized sand dunes from an extinct desert. There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon.

---

​

Note yet again the emphasis on the fact that what is actually recorded is time and change over time and that the layers show shallow seas, ancient sea shores, marine and terrestrial environments and even a desert.

---

What is seen but NOT explained by Walther's Law is marine sediment layering, varves, cross bedding, limestone and other biological rocks, the formation of sandstone, mudstone, shale, peat, coal, magma metamorphism, intrusions, extrusions, faulting, weathering, channels, biological fossils, fossil tracks, imprints, pillow lava, trapps, flood debris, glacial carving, unconformities, non-conformities, folding and almost everything actually found in reality. It is necessary for anyone to consider either of the Biblical Flood myths as actually happening instead of simply being plot devices in stories.

Absolute screaming nonsense, just the usual ridiculous flat-out assertion without the slightest bit of actual evidence. The way all evolution and Old Earth stuff is presented. It's announced as fact, not even a "geologists believe..." to give it a veneer of credibility. This is how the public is treated by this kind of science, meaning the kind that CAN'T be proved, the historical stuff that is all imaginative guesswork. Even the hard sciences aren't presented with this degree of flat-out dogma. See, just flat-out statement as if it were fact. It isn't fact and it can't be fact, it's the current idea based on a whole bunch of ponderings and iffy measurements, none of which could possibly be proved but have to be taken on faith as it were, on the say-so of *Science.*As I pointed out there isn't the slightest observable evidence in the strata of any degree of difference in age whatever. The "oldest" layers have no more signs of decrepitude than "younger" layers, no more erosion, no more appearance of any kind of breakdown or sagging or dissolution whatever, no more crumbling or surface erosion, nothing at all. Even after the first few million years you'd expect SOME kind of changes, even before the layers of the next "time period" were laid down. But no, look at the straight-edged flatness of the Tapeats where it is most exposed for instance. Stand back and look at the layers as a unit. THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME AS FAR AS FORM GOES. Bla bla bla bla bla. The "warm shallow seas" are determined by the sediment of the rock and perhaps fossil contents. If the sediment was simply transported and dumped you'd never figure it out would you? If there is reason to consider the sea shallow (and for some reason most of them in the GC are considered to have been warm and shallow) perhaps it's because the sediment was deposited by the encroaching part of the Flood which WOULD have been shallow. And warm? Well, the pre-Flood world is considered to have been rather lush and tropical. HOWEVER, the whole idea is nonsensical because it's based on the kind of sediment and the assumption that it was deposited in an ancient time period. If none of that is true the whole idea of warm shallow seas disintegrates. It's a flat rock, not dunes.You all try to tell me my beliefs have no credibility compared to your exalted *science,* but this stuff is nothing but a flimflam put over on us credulous human beings. The credibility of this kind of flat-out indefensible assertion ought to be ZERO. You claim EVIDENCE. Boy is that a delusion. Some tea leaves in a rock basically. You don't WANT to believe in the Flood, that's the real explanation for all this hoo-ha. Scripture SAYS the Flood is denied out of Willful Ignorance. You all turn that around to claim the ignorance is on the other side. Lies and blather. Wake up.

Except for the fact Faith that nothing has been presented that is not observable facts. For example "The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. " is fact and can be supported by counting the major (note the term major, there are far more than 40 layers in reality) layers and the ages can be verified by a variety of techniques beginning with superposition (you do remember Steno's Principles don't you) and also by absolute dating methods like radiometric, luminescence, marker horizons and cosmogenic dating. Of course we would which is how all of the known flood deposits have been identified. Floods do leave evidence Faith and what floods don't do is sort materials and biological samples the way things exist in reality. Except of course there are folk who have actually examined the evidence and found it really is not just a flat rock (which seems to exist only in your imagination) but in fact fossil dunes with cross bedding. And don't forget those 14 or more known unconformities which are absolute and conclusive evidence that at one time they were at the surface and material was weathered and eroded away before the layers now on top of the unconformities were laid down. And yet once again you simply misrepresent what the Bible says. No where in the Bible does it say that the floods are denied out of Willful Ignorance; that too is simply another of your fantasies Faith. Remember many of us have actually read the Bible and believe it actually says what it says.

So then, it's just a matter of 'flat-out' denial for Faith.Fine with me.I'm glad we got that cleared up.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I rightly decided not to read your posts some time back. Unfrotunately I haven't stuck to that promise, but I think I'll go back to it. Who needs to read this kind of stuff: Ugh.

I will admit that if you really want to you can stretch that to meet your needs however that has nothing to do with the other parts I pointed out.Can you address the other parts of the post?

quote:

---

Faith writes:

​

Absolute screaming nonsense, just the usual ridiculous flat-out assertion without the slightest bit of actual evidence. The way all evolution and Old Earth stuff is presented. It's announced as fact, not even a "geologists believe..." to give it a veneer of credibility. This is how the public is treated by this kind of science, meaning the kind that CAN'T be proved, the historical stuff that is all imaginative guesswork. Even the hard sciences aren't presented with this degree of flat-out dogma.

​

Except for the fact Faith that nothing has been presented that is not observable facts. For example "The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. " is fact and can be supported by counting the major (note the term major, there are far more than 40 layers in reality) layers and the ages can be verified by a variety of techniques beginning with superposition (you do remember Steno's Principles don't you) and also by absolute dating methods like radiometric, luminescence, marker horizons and cosmogenic dating.

​

Faith writes:

​

Bla bla bla bla bla. The "warm shallow seas" are determined by the sediment of the rock and perhaps fossil contents. If the sediment was simply transported and dumped you'd never figure it out would you?

​

Of course we would which is how all of the known flood deposits have been identified. Floods do leave evidence Faith and what floods don't do is sort materials and biological samples the way things exist in reality.

​

Faith writes:

​

It's a flat rock, not dunes.

​

Except of course there are folk who have actually examined the evidence and found it really is not just a flat rock (which seems to exist only in your imagination) but in fact fossil dunes with cross bedding. And don't forget those 14 or more known unconformities which are absolute and conclusive evidence that at one time they were at the surface and material was weathered and eroded away before the layers now on top of the unconformities were laid down.

---

Edited by jar, : include all the stuff Faith did not address.

It's more than denial. That dogmatic declarative way of telling us what we're supposed to believe, about something that couldn't possibly be proved although it's mere science, ought to be rejected by all, including you. It's an abuse of language and intelligence and even you should see that. It's a bamboozle, it's a way of forcing us to believe something without any effort even to try to persuade us. It's one thing to preach God, since there's nothing else that one can do but preach God, it's another to preach Science as if it were God, especially considering all those sanctimonious appeals to Evidence you all aiffirm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh, old earth models have been shown to work very well by exploration and mining companies all over the world.For some reason YEC's always tend to forget about exploration and mining companies on forums such as these. They always forget to mention those.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Sure they work. That's because you consistently confuse the physical level of a rock -- or its depth or position in the geologic column -- with the ridiculous ancient age you assign to it. The level is all you need to know, the age is a lie.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, we know. Old earth models work for those exploration and mining companies. That's why they spend billions. Their models work. This doesn't make any sense. What the heck is 'the physical level of a rock'? You made that one up. The outcrops of coals I investigated in the northern parts of the Witbank Coalfield were deposited on deltas, derived from glacial valleys forming in a fresh water lakes. I studied deltaic deposits Faith. Not the age, Faith. The process. In my case, that's how I know that those coal deposits are very, very old. Those coal deposits were formed on deltas. Not global floods.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This isn't the thread for it but if you want to start another to defend your contention that what you are calling a delta was ever really a delta, and why it matters whether it was a delta or not, I'd be interested.