Summations Only

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.

If you're talking about sequence stratigraphy, there is a correlation. Which is, in fact, used to reconstruct sea-level curves. But again that doesn't mean that we will find corresponding unconformities in different places which are at different altitudes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But that doesn't say what you think it does. It says that tectonic events caused subsidence in the Carboniferous, not uplift. And then "Subsequent subsidences ended with uplift during the Sakmarian" --- which is in the Permian (which is just where the diagram I showed you puts it). So if they are right, then the Carboniferous deposits are due to repeated episodes of subsidence caused by rifting, not by alternating episodes of uplift and subsidence.I can't comment on stuff written in the Cyrillic alphabet, but the paper in English contradicts rather than supports your claims.

But if they are right, nor did uplift, which happened in the Permian, which is after the Carboniferous.

And here's a website proving you wrong about everything. Well, so far as I know, 'cos I don't actually speak Urdu.

You could maybe give me references, preferably references that aren't written in a language I can't speak?

Yes, that would kind of be what I was complaining about. Possibly ... in Russian.How many times do we have to explain this to you? Instead of debating people who speak Russian, you have chosen to debate people who speak English. That's fair enough. But in order to do so, you need to present evidence in English rather than in Russian. If this is too difficult for you, go and find a Russian forum on the same topic, and talk to them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The word "fixist" is an obsolete term for a geologist who opposes continental drift --- obsolete because such people don't exist any more. Hence there are not "many" fixists "among modern scholars".As has been pointed out to you, this is not the right thread for you to be wrong about radiometric dating. Could we hear a little something about flood geology, please?

Just to be clear about this, before we go on.Do you claim that(1) All the strata earlier than the PT boundary were laid down by the flood?(2) Some of the strata earlier than the PT boundary were deposited by normal processes, and then some of them laid down by the flood? (If so, where do the normal processes end and the flood begin?)(3) The flood event corresponds to the PT boundary?(4) Other? (Please state which.)Thanks.

Thanks.On the other hand, this means that you're somwhat off-topic. 'Cos "flood geology" is not merely the belief that the flood happened, it's the attempt to explain away the geological record in terms of the supposed effects of the flood. Anyone who identifies the flood with the PT boundary is not trying to do this.---Now, there's a reason why the "flood geologists" try to do this. You, it seems, are a young-Earther, and yet you ascribe most of the geological column to perfectly normal non-flood processes.But we can measure the rate of ordinary processes: for example we can measure the rate of deposition of pelagic sediment using one of these things (it's called a sediment trap). Depending on which part of the ocean you're looking at, and which sediment, the three main kinds of pelagic sediment (pelagic clay, siliceous ooze, calcareous ooze) accumulate at a rate of about 10-50 mm per thousand years.Now here, for example, are the White Cliffs of Dover ... ... which are made of calcareous ooze. That is, they are chalk. Which accumulates at no more than 50 mm per thousand years.You see the problem? This is why young-Earthers usually turn to "flood geology" --- they are dimly aware that they can't ascribe the geological record to ordinary geological processes, because when you do that you have to concede that the Earth is not in fact young.

Yeah, but why is it always cheetahs? We point out that if the Ark story was true, every species would show a bottleneck. Creationists reply: "Well, cheetahs did, so there's your evidence of a flood". But cheetahs are singular and unique in this matter, that's why you guys only ever mention cheetahs. If the Ark story was true, every species would demonstrate a bottleneck, but in fact cheetahs are the exception and not the rule, which is why you have to go on talking only about cheetahs.---Again, we are wandering from the topic, which was quite specific. If you'd like to start a new topic called something like" Mindspawn's Five Favorite Arguments In Favor Of The Flood", then I'm sure the moderators would promote it. But this thread is meant to be about flood geology --- the attempt to explain away the facts of geology in terms of the flood causing the geological record.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No we don't.Either you're wrong or I'm right. We do not have to "agree to disagree". So what does the evidence say?

Well, yes. Start a new thread. We want to hear what you have to say, but if you don't want to defend "flood geology" then you're really not talking about "flood geology"."Flood geology" is where young-earth-creationists pretend that they can explain the geological record by invoking Noah's Flood. If you don't believe that, then we are not really discussing flood geology.

You don't?You don't?All of them. Every single one of them,Every singe current civilization that is a civilization. Every single hi-tech culture produces pictures of (for example) dinosaurs --- "based on extinct skeletal remains". Americans do it, Europeans do it, the Chinese do it, the Japanese do it, everyone does it. Every culture that has gotten further than the hunter-gatherer stage produces "artwork based on extinct skeletal remains", depicting dinosaurs.