The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

The roots of your insanity are becoming clearer. Do you suppose that the strata were rocks when they were laid down?They were sediment, Faith. Sedimentary rock is formed from sediment. Hence the name.---Landscapes can have flat bits. For example: It is therefore not surprising that we can find evidence of flat bits in (for example) the Jurassic as well as evidence of Jurassic mountains.

What's puzzling me here is why you are using marine strata to describe terrestrial environments.I thought that you understood Walther's Law.

It's really funny. Not only can Creationists and Flood supporters never provide any mechanism, model, method, process, procedure or thingamabob to explain how a flood can produce what exists in reality (geology, fossil sorting, continuing cultures that existed both before and after the asserted flood yet never noticed it) they seem to forget even the most basic.If they wish to pretend the flood deposited all of the "strata" as they claim, then that material must have existed before the flood in some form. It must have been hills and mountains and valleys and plains and rivers and deltas and bays and oceans and deserts and forests and grasslands and swamps and ...In other words, it must have been pretty much like the landscape we see today.

Actually, quite wrong.Here is a strat column for on location at the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument: It clearly depicts at least one stream deposit, some ash flows and several unconformities.However, more importantly, you still do not understand the concept of 'the' geological column. You still think of the geological time scale as a geological column. As Pressie tried to express before, there are stratigraphic columns (plural) and a geological time scale. A 'geologic column' is more of a general term that can mean several things. YEC have, of course, exploited this by redefining it as a stratigraphic column. And, in fact, every location on earth has a different stratigraphic column. I'd say you are 'flat' wrong; but this statement makes no sense at all so I can't even tell what you are saying. It sounds like you think that such features manifest in the column, but actually exist somewhere else. Are you talking about a hologram?But, at any rate, if you have a better explanation for river rocks in a channel-like pattern within the geological section, I'd love to hear about it.ETA:
I also get the impression that you do not know what 'strata' means. Here is a definition from dictionary.com: You will note that there is nothing regarding the thickness, flatness nor lateral extent of those layers or beds.Here is a cross-section of the Cretaceous rocks near where I live. It is created from a number of stratigraphic columns along the length of the section.Note the lack of lateral continuity of the rock formations, they are hardly of continental scale considering that the area is just eastern Colorado. So, are they made up of "strata"? I would say yes, thousands of them. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This one of the implications of what Faith thinks. Essentially, the flood buried a pre-existing topography with animals, people, topography and artifacts, and then nothing until the end of the flood where, suddenly, we get people, animals artifacts and topography again.All in one year.Think about it. She does not believe in unconformities, magmatism, or erosion, or deformation until the end of geology (after the flood).So, the fossil record, as we see it is mystery, but still not significant because the fossils are all of the same age (the year of the flood). All of the things we see in the geological record simply do not exist and biblical revelation trumps evidence.ETA: Frankly, I have found this discussion so surreal that I really don't know what to say. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

And never a single explanation of how the asserted flood transported and deposited all that preexisting landscape in the order reality shows or how all that preexisting landscape got created in the first place other than magic and goddidit.

And so another reasonable Creationist observation is treated to the usual obfuscating garbling tricks to pretend it doesn't overthrow Old Earthism. But it does. The facts so observed prove the Flood against Old Earthism. Of course as much sheer noise and chaos must be the response or somebody might notice that it shows the falseness of Old Earthism.The fact of the matter is that there are no time periods, there are only the rocks wrongly associated with time periods. There are no landscapes, those are all imagined from stuff in the rocks which is really nothing but flotsam from the Flood.There are no rivers in the strata, just some kinds of rocks that were formed in rivers. They seem unable to tell the difference. They also can't seem to tell the difference between sedimentary deposits when first laid down, and the deformations to a whole stack of them later.But the actual surface of the earth was nothing but sedimentary deposits in each bogus "time period." This is clear because it is known that the strata cover great distances, great distances of flat sedimentation that became rock, to a great depth in which the layers are all in a recognizable order. Strata, not livable landscapes, just sedimentary deposits, the ACTUAL surface of the earth in each time period. It's amazing how much effort has gone into pretending this was not the case.They prefer their games and their imaginary time periods, but the facts remain: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You can call your lies "reasonable observations" or even "facts". But they are still lies.

Inferred, not imagined. Just as we infer a dinosaur from its bones. We can tell the difference. One is a rive, the other is evidence of a former river. Well, some facies cover great distances. But the remains of lakes cover smaller distances, which is one way we can recognize them. The remains of rivers are, y'know, river-shaped. Could I once again point out that most livable landscapes are in fact sedimentary deposits. It is actually harder to live on bare rock. If you dug beneath your own house, it is highly probable that you would hit dirt. That dumb cartoon is not a fact, Faith It is dumb shit that you have made up in your head which is contradicted by all the evidence in the geological record, and which everyone who has studied that record would dismiss as the retarded product of a deranged mind.

That's weird.How do you think these corals got into the Pennsylvanian fossil record? Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Cnidaria
Class: Anthozoa
Order: Tabulata
Family: Pachyporidae
Genus: Thamnoporella (Thamnoporella - Wikipedia)The tabulate corals, forming the order Tabulata, are an extinct form of coral. ... Like rugose corals, they lived entirely during the Paleozoic, being found from the Ordovician to the Permian. (Thamnoporella - Wikipedia)Seems kind of strange that you could have and entire order of corals generated during a flood that deposited the entire Phanerozoic section in one year.Well, maybe the Bethany Falls Limestone (where these coral specimens came from) is not a stratum, eh?But wait. It's within the Pennsylvanian System. That would be in the middle of the fludde when strata were being deposited.What happened?

Since limestone is often made of fossil organisms Bethany Falls is marginally on topic in this thread but it is also another great example of the utter worthlessness of so called Flood Geology.Here's a picture someone (I wish I could remember who) sent me when I was working on an earlier thread about examples of sequential deposits. It's similar to the layers found in the Grand Canyon but relatively simpler since it consists two primary materials, limestone and shale covered by a layer of loess. Here we see seven distinct limestone layers, each on10-25 feet thick, each separated by layers of shale and then the whole segment covered by loess.What is the model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob of the asserted flood that in this area will deposit what exists in reality which is repeated, cyclical alternating layers of limestone and shale and that would then cover the structure with loess?Edited by jar, : fix depths

Just one more ironic statement from Faith: So what happened?Did someone move them?

As we all know, the Flood can do anything. In this case it took rocks out of a real river, suspended them floating on top of the flood water for a bit while it shoveled in other sediment underneath of them, and then put them carefully down in the shape of a river, thus faking up the evidence for a river in order to fool geologists. (You note the devilish cunning of faking the evidence for a river by using just those rocks which, if left in situ, would actually have constituted evidence for a real river?) Fortunately Faith saw through the Flood's subterfuge because she's smarter than hyperintelligent mischievous water.

I though maybe Noah was unloading river rock ballast as the ark sank lower and lower in the water.It must have been difficult to produce the imbricated cobble texture. Oh, wait ... That's just insignificant flotsam.

Okay, so let's look at some strata. Here is a statement regarding the Williamsburg Member of the Lawrence Formation in Kansas: So, if we look at the local stratigraphic column for the Pennsylvanian of that area, we have this: Yes, there it is again, a geological column showing stream deposits that have eroded down through underlying sediments, including the Sibley Coal (a common occurrence called a 'cut-out'). And it's right in the middle of the fludde, where only extensive strata are being deposited. I wll admit that there is extensive vertical exaggeration in this image, so it isn't all that extreme, but surely the lower beds are eroded by streams which left behind sand and gravel channels.And what's this? Fossilized tree stumps? That's weird, especially since this is not a liveable landscape.How did that happen?Edited by edge, : No reason given.