Summations Only

The Reformation RESTORED the true biblical Christianity that had been ignored and twisted by Roman Catholic pagan superstitition. If they ARE Christian, they differ only on secondary minor points. But you probably wouldn't recognize a denomination from an all out heresy so this discussion would get way to complicated and I'd rather not go there.

It's a misinterpretation. Perhaps you could show one to be sure.

The Temple Butte channel couldn't possibly be something that had ever been on the surface. That's obvious to me, sorry if you don't see it.There are many separate observations that go into my view of the Great Unconformity. I'm too sick of arguing about this right now to want to review all that.I don't get what you or anyone is trying to say about the monadnocks and don't know if it's worth hearing more about it.No I have not arrived at the judgment that there was no disturbance to the geo column from presuppositions but from actual evidence. I worked on it a lot back when. I clearly clearly demonstrated what I was seeing in the Grand Canyon.But everybody's usual denial is just getting too tiresome. I wish I'd written it all out somewhere independently of this place where it's so hard to find anything. .Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I intended to get back to your post but due to the subsequent disparaging and discouraging remarks from so many here I don't feel like it now. Who knows, I may feel like it later.

:I do thank you for the attempt to help incorrigible me with my "confusion" and especially for being more specific than one usually encounters on this subject. Especially since you expect your offering to be rebuffed as I always have to expect mine to be. It's not fun, though being on the "right" side with lots of buddies ought to help soothe the pain from one lone stupid creationist's insults. Be that as it may... Please forgive me but I continue to have the same problem. (Do geology students just swallow all this without questions or objections by the way?)If there are "many" stratigraphies per time period, they still are all contained within the same rock layer or band of layers found around the world, right? Or however that should be said. Just different collections of sediment in different places, but all in the same band of rock or same level in the column, right? And all containing the same fossils.Why should there be a rock System associated with a particular time period anyway? Ever? And one per time period -- it is only one because although there are different rocks in different places they all occur at the same physical level and all contain the same fossilized creatures, yes? Why should EVERY "time period" have such a sedimentary representative, a System, at all? Isn't there something a bit contra Nature about such an occurrence?I understand that it would be hard to question something so utterly taken for granted, and which does in fact bear the label of the time period in all the representations of the geologic column, but I would think that someone might step back some time and ask why such a correspondence should exist at all, let alone so consistently. Why should there be a recognizable sedimentary System, set of layers or whatever, in any stack called the Geologic Column anywhere? One rock System per time period, and no time period without one. Is there a principle anywhere else in Nature that makes sense of this? But System will do, it doesn't have to be a single layer, it's whatever is bracketed on those diagrams of the Geological Column that is identified as belonging to the particular time period. Sometimes it's one sediment, such as the Redwall limestone, sometimes it's a few identifiable layers. I'm not stuck on some single-sediment formula, it depends on what I see on the diagrams. But can you understand why this specificity doesn't really change my perspective? They all occur at exactly the same level around the world, and they all contain the same fossils. Isn't that how it was recognized in the first place that there is something systematic going on here? There is no time period without its rock System and no rock System without its time period. I can't see anything else anywhere in Nature that justifies such an idea. Yes here and there a particular rock System fails to show up , but the amazing thing is that it's just here and there while the rule is that each time period has its pet rock System all around the world. And separated by millions of years. (Even if two different Systems should occur close in time, those on the other side of each are millions of years away. Are you sure you mean this? That a sequence of particular sedimentary rocks can belong to both the Devonian and the Silurian perhaps, or the Triassic and the Jurassic perhaps? But then they'd have to contain different fossils wouldn't they? Is this what you are saying? Now this is not at all clear. Could you find a different analogy to make it clearer?Look, I'm thinking this through honestly, I don't have anything "religious" in mind as I'm thinking it through, I'm thinking only of layers of rock around the world and time labels assocfiated with them. I'm basing it all on conclusions I've come to about the physical situation over the last couple of decades. I'd really really appreciate it if even if you think me crazy or stupid or just wrong you'd allow that I'm honestly thinking about the physical world and raising honest issues.After having thought about these things for so long it has become habitual to me to see things as I do and it does make me wonder how intelligent scientists can just take such truly weird contra-natural things for granted. I can answer "paradigm clash" but I'm nevertheless always astonished at just how adamantly ingrained it is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You all keep complaining that a worldwide Flood wouldn't sort things, but I have to wonder why time would sort things physically either, meaning sort them into layers. Why shou8ld any particular collection of living things be found in a particular layer of rock? Why aren't fossils found buried willy-nilly instead of in neat rock layer graves? Why aren't they buried at different depths just becaue the earth is usually lumpy with hills and valleys in any time span. I mean even if you insist that they had to be buried at different levels because of evolution, why in identifiable straight rock layers? Representing what looks sort of like a clear order of living things over the taxonomic system? And it certainly seems that if a creature, say a rabbit, were to be found out of "place" (or "time") it would be over the supposed millions of years assuming earthquake and tectonic displacements. This is all way too pat, and, really, unnatural.I'm sure this could be said better but it's a start at saying something that's been bothering me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ah well, so much for fair and honest debate. Nothing you said here makes any more sense than what I was already dealing with.

Ah well, so much for fair and honest debate. Nothing you said here makes any more sense than what I was already dealing with.

So why don't we see a similar flat straight layer of sediment extending across huge spans of geography now, and collecting all the creatures familiar in our current time period? Of course it would have to extend through cities and towns and highway systems and so on and so forth, collecting lots of those artifacts too. The absurdity and physical impossibility of flat straight layers defining time periods escapes you all. Too bad. I guess the cosmos is going to have to roll up like a scroll before you see it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is nothing "local" about the geological strata -- or rock Systems if you prefer -- of the geological column. They extend for hundreds of thousands of square miles, some more, a LOT more, some less, but they are never "local."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There wouldn't have been cities and towns and highway systems in former "eras" of course, but there must have been hills and valleys to present obstacles to hundreds of thousands pf square miles of straight flat sedimentary layers.But gee, there weren't.Amazing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So in your dictionary a few hundred square miles of the sme or similar sedimentary rock considered to be continuous and containing only fossils identified with a particular Time Period, can be called "local?"

I see. And do the Saharan erg, the Brazilian shield, and the Florida/Bahamian Banks lie over respective stacks of similarly extensive flat straight sedimentary layers identifiable with earlier Time Periods as all the layers/Systems of the currently identifiable Geological column do, and if not, why should anyone consider them to have anything to do with the Geological Column and its corresponding Geological Timescale at all, rather than just sand and swampy stuff that could turn to coal and whatever calcareous stuff could possibly turn into limestone, but who knows if any of it really will? If you're going to assert that any of this is related to the Geological Column shouldn't there be more similarity with the Geological Column, in form and location?So for hundreds of millions of years we got one rock System on top of another spanning most of North America, and now we're getting no more and we're supposed to believe that the Geological Column just abasndoned North America after all that time?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Or how they look when you understand them as the wrong interpretations of the obsolete false paradigm that needs to be overturned.

That very white diagram with its fine line graphics is very hard for me to read, but I think I get the idea. It's like many others you have posted in the past.I'm thinking of the maps that show continuous deposition of layers or Systems or even the six "transgressions" (Sauk to Zuni) as blocks, spanning most of the continent with no breaks clearly identifiable with obstacles.What your diagram depicts is what happened after all the strata had been in place for some time and for originally higher layers to have eroded away (at the end of the Flood), and long enough for the salt layer to sink. In other words that sink wasn't there when the formation was originally deposited so it couldn't have been an obstacle to its extensive straight flat form. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.