Summations Only

And at this time (now), what does it represent?

Okay, just remember that you asked.That line is a chronostratigraphic horizon at the top of the Desmoinesian Stage (North American) of the Pennsylvanian sub-System on the eastern side of the Colorado Plateau.

The thing is, there isn't anything in that diagram to suggest when it occurred, and since I've seen so much evidence that serious disturbances did not happen until the entire geological column was laid down from Cambrian to Holocene, I have no doubt that what is shown in that diagram also happened after it was all in place.There are plenty of other similar situations where there is a salt filled basin or sunken area where it is clear from the way the strata are parallel to each other that they were already there before the basin formed, so on a diagram like the one you've shown, where there aren't any clear clues to timing, that's the most likely interpretation there too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't suppose you could translate that into simple English?

quote:

---

...I've seen so much evidence that serious disturbances did not happen until the entire geological column was laid down from Cambrian to Holocene, I have no doubt that what is shown in that diagram also happened after it was all in place.

---

You have ? Why haven’t you posted about it ?

I have.

Then why have you kept quiet about it ? What is this evidence?

Yes, and why is Faith, the only person in the world who can provide evidence of what happened in the past? Why is such a thing possible for Faith and impossible for science despite the fact that we are talking about the scientific definition of evidence?Well, we know why Faith has indeed posted silly conclusive statements that she bases on some simplistic look at some facts, and of course, her conclusions have not gone without challenge. Faith claims victory despite having proven nothing, and then later claims to have posted evidence in the past. Rinse, lather, repeat; as often as needed on any topic.

There have been many different angles of evidence that the completed geologic column was laid down before being disturbed as a stack, rather than individual layers being disturbed. One of the lines of evidence I've given in the past is cross sections of areas where there are salt basins, in which you can see a whole block of strata, sometimes identified as the usual timescale time periods, all sagging as a unit beneath the salt basin, or sometimes with salt domes shown rising up through the layers from beneath the whole stack, some already at the top though supposedly they must have had millions of years to rise. They rise at a rate that should take a lot less time than millions of years but whatever.I've found a few such discussions on Search but Search is being difficult these days. You get a list of posts on a subject and when you check one out and try to go back to the list you get some kind of error message and have to start the search all over. I remember posting diagrams on this subject many times in the past but I can't find the ones I remember. Michigan basin is one area, Gulf coast area is another. Completed layers all sunken like hammocks in those cases. They prove what I say they prove but getting that across is impossible because of the ingrained conventional paradigm that just can't see the true implications of the evidence because of its pre-emption within the inadequate paradigm.And now I see we're getting the ad hominem type of response. I talk about evidence, you come back at me personally. Oh well. [NO, I DON'T MEAN YOU PERSONALLY IN THIS CASE. ALTHOUGH IT IS CERTAINLY OFTEN TRUE OF YOU. I OFTEN REFER TO ALL MY OPPONENTS AS AN UNDIFFERENTIATED GROUP, SORRY.]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.

quote:

---

There have been many different angles of evidence that the completed geologic column was laid down before being disturbed as a stack, rather than individual layers being disturbed

---

I can’t remember one.

quote:

---

One of the lines of evidence I've given in the past is cross sections of areas where there are salt basins, in which you can see a whole block of strata, sometimes identified as the usual timescale time periods, all sagging as a unit beneath the salt basin, or sometimes with salt domes shown rising up through the layers.

---

If I remember correctly there was contrary evidence in that example, too.However, a few cherry picked examples are not worthwhile as evidence, and nowhere near good enough to justify disregarding contrary evidence. You could equally well argue that all swans are black that way. On the other hand we have very good evidence of earlier disturbancesAs an aside although you said you found discussions you haven’t linked to a single one.

quote:

---

Michigan basin is one area, Gulf coast area is another. Completed layers all sunken like hammocks in those cases

---

Even if true that’s obviously not enough even if we didn’t have good counter-examples. Some, therefore all is obviously invalid reasoning. [quote]

quote:

---

And now I see we're getting the ad hominem type of response. I direct you to the evidence, you come back at me personally. Oh well.

---

Even if we generously accept your vague references as direction there is no reason to believe that the evidence is remotely adequate, or even could be. And there certainly was no ad hominem in the post you replied to or it’s predecessor. Which is more than can be said for your post.

Yes, that's the kind of dismissive irrelevant "other evidence" I usually get. If there are only two separate areas where it can be shown that the strata were all in place before any disturbance occurred, whether tectonic, erosive, volcanic or salt-caused deformation as a unit, that is consistent with the Flood model which would of course expect all the strata everywhere to be laid down one after another in rapid succession, and if salt domes rise up through the whole stack and have already reached the top, and we know that if enough has accumulated they can rise almost at a visible rate of movement, that it would have taken nowhere near millions of years. More like, oh, say, something like four thousand or less? Yes, this is all explained differently via the other paradigm, the other system of interpretation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes, that's the kind of dismissive irrelevant "other evidence" I usually get

---

Instead of getting arrogant and nasty when you are caught making false claims it would be better not to make the false claims in the first place.

quote:

---

If there are only two separate areas where it can be shown that the strata were all in place before any disturbance occurred, whether tectonic, erosive, volcanic or salt-caused deformation as a unit, that is consistent with the Flood model which would of course expect all the strata everywhere to be laid down one after another in rapid succession,

---

Then all the regions where there is contrary evidence would certainly outweigh them. Because there is a lot of geological evidence against your Flood geology.

quote:

---

...salt domes rise up through the whole stack and have already reached the top, and we know that they rise almost at a visible rate of movement, that it would have taken nowhere near millions of years. More like, oh, say, something like four thousand or less?

---

Guesses aren’t evidence, and even if you could find a young salt dome it wouldn’t be evidence that the Earth is young. That really should be obvious.

Produce one of those aupposedly many areas of contrary evidence please. This is just the usual case of competing explanatory paradigms and not of different facts so that's what I would aim to show with whatever different evidence you think you have.

Since the prevailing paradigm says the geo column layers start hundreds of millions of years ago, if a salt dome can be shown to have risen from beneath the earliest rock layer, the Cambrian, to the top of the stack or Holocene, or even where there are layers missing it could be shown to have risen through a few million years' worth of layers/time periods, that would be a strong indication that the timescale explanation is out of whack, since the domes once formed rise fast enough to cause earthquakes and create other problems.

quote:

---

Produce one of those aupposedly many areas of contrary evidence please.

---

The Grand Canyon Area has a number of features, of course, Siccar Point - anywhere there is an angular unconformity. Anywhere we find desert deposits, like the Gobi. Anywhere we find substantial evaporites deposits like the example Edge posted recently in this thread, anywhere we find buried landscapes - a stunning example at Naturalis Historia

quote:

---

This is just the usual case of competing explanatory paradigms and not of different facts so that's what I would aim to show with whatever different evidence you think you have.

---

Funny how that never applies to your evidence.