Summations Only

Well, this is the "Geology and the Great Flood" forum.

Show your working. Fortunately Noah and his floating zoo had wrapped up warm and were unaffected by temperatures 150 degrees below zero.---Incidentally, you still haven't answered my question. If the mammoths were preserved in situ, does that mean that all the geology under them is pre-flood in origin?

Don't knock it, it worked.

Perhaps you could read and reply to my posts on this subject. I particularly recommend the one where I tell you how to spell "mantle".

Why did you divide the height of Everest by two?

Here is an account of a human skeleton recovered from the wreck of the Belle, lost at sea in 1686. Oops, it forgot to vanish in accordance with "Nature/Gods amazingly effective way". Because it turns out that taphonomy works like taphonomists think it does and not how you think it does. Take Fort Dobbs, for example (**), abandoned since the 1760s. There the bones of bison are found in association with Colonial-era porcelain and musket-balls. Seems they forgot to "turn to dust", because taphonomy works like taphonomists think it does and not how you think it does.---This is a good example of why you should get your information from people who know things instead of from creationists.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't know where creationists got this nutty idea about rapid burial. It is demonstrable that many fossils were not rapidly buried. When they are, the skeletons are found intact, and paleontologists get all excited and start singing the Happy Paleontologist Song. They get excited because this is rare.Here's a quote from a book I've just been reading on mudstone: So when you claim that your flood would have created "perfect conditions for fossil formation", then this is actually an argument against the flood, since the vast majority of fossils were demonstrably formed under conditions which were far from perfect. This is why what we mostly find is a tooth here, a vertebra there, half a bivalve detached from its other half ... and in 99.9 of cases, no soft parts at all.Perhaps you'd like to try again and explain how your flood explains the actual fossil record, the one we find in the rocks, not the one creationists made up. * To explain the bit about dissolution, the stuff from which bones and shells are made is soluble. Depending on the temperature and depth (I'll skip the technical details) a shell will start to pit and corrode as it lies on the seafloor awaiting burial. Extensive pitting shows that it had to wait a long time. (Of course, if it has to wait long enough, it will entirely dissolve and there won't be any shell left to examine.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It would be more accurate to say that it produces one layer, grading upwards from coarse to fine. (It would produce discrete layers if there were discrete sizes of clasts in the original sediment, e.g. gravel and clay, and again these layers would grade upwards from coarse to fine.)This is not what we find in the geological record.Let us know when you're going to explain what we do find. A first step would be for you to find out something about what it is your flood is meant to be explaining, i.e. the geological record.

Naturally. Why do you mention it? No, it came from studying sedimentology, you know, that thing you know nothing about?The fact that from his limited data he was able to come to a conclusion which would be later confirmed by sciences he couldn't even imagine is not a reason to cast aspersions on him but rather to hail him as a visionary and a genius. Yes, he managed to infer an old earth before radiometric dating existed. What a man! Yes. Because the history which had been written was wrong. These fish ... they were drowned in the flood, were they? But not showing that there was a magic flood. Er ... how do you know what a struthiomimus looks like when it's drowned as opposed to dying in some other way?Oh, right, you made it up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It depends what one means. Strictly speaking, those are layers from each geological period deposited one on top of the other, they aren't the geological column. Again, strictly speaking, that is something found in textbooks in the same way as the periodic table is, it's a summary of knowledge, it's not a thing that someone keeps somewhere that you can go and look at.But it depends what it is Portillo's trying to say. If when he talks of "the geological column [...] in its entirety with all 12 layers in order" what he means by "the geological column in its entirety" is the "12 layers in order", then you are right and he's wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.