Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

ParkingPlaces



    Posts: 6627
  • Darwins +796/-6

CC
Oh, and the sandstone thing. Gee, why do you think there isn't any of that same sandstone in South Dakota, Ohio or Mississippi? Or Alaska or California, or Maine, let alone Brazil or England or Japan.  Why would it be localized?  Why is there no sandstone whatsoever around where I live in Montana?  A big flood would be, you know, big. Geologists have an explanation, but you find it inconvenient so you prefer making up stuff. That is your prerogative. Just don't expect to be impressive too.

Did you expect the sandstone to cover the earth? How big exactly is big enough for you? Edit: Obviously many other places have sedimentary rock too, what I used is an example, not a thorough discourse

And yes, there are also good reasons to doubt other dating methods, mostly with similar reasoning as c-14.

You don't get to have it both ways. You can't point out that something points to proof for you, and then dismiss it as irrelevant. In one part of that deposit, you can find some of the purest sandstone in the world, while in other parts, not so much. One big flood forming different kinds of sandstone in the same region at the same time?  "sure, why not!" you say, and you suggest it as proof or at least evidence of a flood, then when it is pointed out that, as a localized phenomena it appears to be proof only of a localized geologic event (which is what I implied, though I was busier making fun of you), then you say "Golly gee, that was just an example. And there is other sandstone in the world, so that is more proof. And I feel no need whatsoever to explain the lack of consistency is the worldwide deposits of sandstone after implying that a really big flood formed sandstone, because, you know, my source hasn't made up an excuse yet either so I have to beg off."

So since you've already dismissed this argument, I won't ask questions like how come none of the sandstone around the world, often full of fossils, has no fossils of drowned sinners in it? It seems like all your creation scientists could jump in a mini-van, run out to a sandstone deposit anywhere they choose, and start digging out human corpses so lovingly zapped by your favorite deity. And that would go a long way towards proving once and for all that your favorite bedtime story for kiddies, the near total destruction of the earth, was true.

So while you are inconvenienced by the facts of the matter, you are still demanding that your one minute synopsis of the matter take precedence over the work of scientists who tell us that this particular sandstone formed over 400 million years ago, and it took millions of years to form. And the fact that this particular sandstone contains no large animal fossils whatsoever, and in fact contains very few fossils at all. Compared to many other sandstone deposits. But that's okay, because a large, churning, angry sea, blending the drowned biomass of an entire planet, can still carefully separate materials and drop them where you want.  But then it goes to all that trouble and you dismiss the importance of differing deposits as "just an example".  You aren't very appreciative, are you.

Of course you seemed to imply that you were leaving, but I noticed that you posted again on another thread this morning. Lacking a know-it-all attitude, I can't speak, like you do, with an inconsistent air of superiority, but I do hope that this morning's appearance means that you will respond with poor sarcasm to this post of mine, as you have so often done before.
Changed Change Reason Date
Anfauglir Damn good point about the fossils of sinners! September 16, 2013, 03:22:56 AM