Summations Only

As long as you are quoting St. Augustine, here is a quotation that may apply:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. -- De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis")

Unfortunately, much of what you have posted concerning flood geology seems to be covered by this quotation.

I have not read these books in Russian of which you speak (have you?) However, I can read English, for example this website of the University of California Museum of Paleontology. It clearly states: (Note that the "Pennsylvanian" is what Americans call the first half of the Carboniferous Period.) Now although they are talking about North American rocks in particular, the mechanism to which they attribute them would clearly be global, since it involves global changes in sea-level; hence it would explain all the characteristic cyclothems of the Carboniferous, including those of Donetsk.This is clearly the case, for, as I say, the production of coal-bearing cyclothems was worldwide during the Carboniferous. Now, this can be explained by changes in the global climate causing changes in the global sea-level. But by your daft interpretation, this would have to involve coincidental localized epeirogenic earth movements all over the globe as separate bits of the planet somehow decided to bounce up and down in synchrony.This would also (if any answer is needed) answer your point about erosion. There wouldn't need to be any erosion of the Donesk Basin in the Carboniferous, because there wouldn't need to be any uplift of the Donesk Basin during the Carboniferous. Just transgressions and regressions caused by melting and glaciation, the same as was happening everywhere else in the world at that time. A sort of audible sigh.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

When I use it it's an expression of frustration at bullheadedness or persistent stupidity.--Percy

I know these words of St. Augustine, and fully agree with them. But I think I do not say there's anything to be ashamed.Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.

Sheesh. You all say is right and I agree with you, but you're talking about raising the Permian and the end of Mesozoic, and I'm talking about raising the Carboniferous period, which according to geologists were responsible for the formation of marshes and coal. But about these uplifts the column does not say anything, because the small scale. But they are were (according to geologists), because the situation of accumulation was changed. My evidence - a form of layer, a thin layer spread over a wide area. This is a typical form of layers of marine origin. It is unlikely that the marsh was homogeneous on a such large area, and unlikely that the vibrational motion of the earth's crust took place with such precision (one meter) and as often as in the Carboniferous period in the Donbas. Yes, I have no idea about it. Yes, he was completely wrong. A line of demarcation could not be carried out, the time is always relative. Thank you, I will try it. Calcium carbonate in sea water depends on many factors and may be very different from the modern. And if you replace a longer duration of gathering material for the formation of limestone over a larger area, you get the same amount of limestone. No, no, all the layers of the Carboniferous period was deposited, and then period of subsidence and squeezed under pressure strata, was formed coal, and then uplift and erosion of the overlying rocks. Usually, yes, but the flood is an unusual event. If we shall have the time and energy, we (shall?) consider also a neighboring regions.

(From link):"Multiple transgressions and regressions of the Pennsylvanian seas across the continent can be seen in the rocks, and even counted, because they leave a telltale sequence of layers"This is very interesting. I make the note for myself, it need to understand. But with that, I do not agree. If the layers of the Carboniferous have been deposited on account of fluctuations in the level of the sea, they correlate with the all world. But this is not observed. Here is the summary of the stratigraphic column from the textbook of historical geology :
Signature over the column: Western Europe, Moscow, Ulyanovsk (Russia), the Donets Basin, the North Caucasus, Northern Urals, Magnitogorsk (Russia), the Kuznetsk basin (Russia), Texas, Australia (New England), Algeria, Libya.
As we can see, there is no correlation.Edited by Serg-antr, : No reason given.

In other words, you referenced a diagram that provides no support for your position.You say that the uplifts were there "according to geologists." Can you please tell us who these geologists are and provide references to their work? We'd really like to know how you know these uplifts happened? They aren't mentioned in your Russian Wikipedia entry (Донецкий каменноугольный бассейн (Donetsk coal basin)). How do you know it's a flood layer and not just a normal marine layer? But Bishop Ussher was a great scholar, and you are not, so rather than just asking us to take your word for it maybe you could provide some, oh, I don't know, evidence in support of your position? How long ago did time become relative? We know that a hundred years ago was the year 1912, and a thousand years ago was the year 912, and two thousand years ago was the year 12, and three thousand years ago was the year 989 BC, and so forth, but you're claiming that at some point we don't actually know how long ago anything was. How far back in time do we stop knowing how long ago things were because "time is always relative"? How was this fact established? How come no one but you knows about this? How is the limestone being deposited on the floors of shallow quiet seas today different from the limestone layers of the Donets basin? But you said that erosion broke up the coal layers. If the layers of the Carboniferous were uplifted then only the top layer would be exposed. Erosion could not affect the still deeply buried coal layers.And the layers above the coal layers could not have been eroded away down to the coal layers because, obviously, they're still there.Or were you trying to say something else when you said that erosion broke up the coal layers? Unusual in the sense that there is no evidence that it ever happened. Why wait? Let's consider the neighboring regions now. How did the layers of the Donets basin bob up and down like a pogo stick while the adjacent layers did nothing? Or is it your idea that all the layers around the world were bouncing up and down in synchrony?I didn't make any effort to remove the colloquialisms, good luck with your automated translator.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I think you're going to have to explain to us in English just what you think each diagram is showing.--Percy

No, think about this.Remember that those places would not all be exactly at the same level. One of them could perfectly well be underwater while the other was dry land. What changes is the sea level, in each particular place the depth to which it was submerged (or wasn't) would be a function of that (and of local subsidence and uplift, if any). And even when two of them are both below (or above) sea-level, the nature of the sediment would depend on local factors, there's no reason why you shouldn't have limestone in one place but shale in another, or peat swamps in one place and a river delta in the other. So we wouldn't expect the stratigraphy to look the same in two different places.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Which geologists? Can you quote them? What are their arguments? But thin layers of coal are not. This is why the Ocean Drilling Project never finds any coal.This is like saying: "Dr Adequate is a bird. My evidence --- he's a biped. This is typical of birds." It overlooks the fact that I have qualities which are never found in birds. Why? Is there some sort of probability theory relating to the size of peat swamps of which I was previously unaware? Which is probably why geologists don't say that that's what happened.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yeah, a key would be nice. The brick pattern is always limestone, but beyond that it's hard to say what we're looking at.

Why are you still discussing the Carboniferous in relation to the global flood?As I pointed out in Message 42, the Carboniferous ended about 300 million years before modern humans evolved.How can you reconcile an error of that magnitude?

From Message 43: --Percy

I saw that.In other words, he is ignoring a massive error while arguing an inconsequential point.But I would still like for him to address the issue instead of hand-waving it away.

Thank you for your friendly and gracious post.