Summations Only

YOU BET IT'S ACTUALLY REFLECVTED IN THE REAL WORLD SO WHAT STUPID POINT DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MAKING BY EMPHASIZING THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST FULLY IN ANY ONE PLACE? YOU CANNOT TAKE THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN THAT EXISTS ON THE CONTINENTS AND IS KNOWN TO EXIST ON THE CONTINENTS AND IS IDENTIFIED BY ITS PRESENCE ON THE CONTINENTS AND THE TIMESCALE THAT IS KNOWN TO BE ATTACHEDE TO THOSE ROCKS ON THE CONTINENTS AND DECIDE TO RELOCATE IT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA JUST BECAU7SE IT IS NO LONGER FORMING ON THE CONTINENTS. IT STOPPED FORMING BECAUSE IT BEGAN AND ENDED WITH THE FLOOD. WHATEVER STRATA ARE STILL FORMING IN THE SEAS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Some of the strata of the geo column also span the ocean beds. So what?

It's a very disoriented creature that would lay eggs in a nest on a wet flat surface in the middle of a Flood. No, the nests were carried there on the water, or simply overtaken and covered by it.I've made the case and now you're all running around like madmen trying to create a distraction.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're right, since SOME of the column, at least one layer as I recall, I think the Redwall limestone, has been found on the Atlantic floor. I don't think of that as representing the column itself, and I certainly don't think that any layers deposited since the Flood are part of it. First explain why there aren't any layers building on the column on the continents. Layers LIKE THOSE IN THE COLUMN.

Aw aren't you cute. Breaking up? What does that mean?. Some think they were underwater volcanoes, which is possible, but I don't have any idea myself/ Something was released from the sea floor that is described as "fountains." I picture them creating a lot of turbulence, stirring up the sediments and so on. perhaps causing the water to rise, but then that would mean leaving a vauum below so I'm not sure. Perhaps that vacuum is what the Flood waters receded into after the sea floor collapsed. I dhink that's one theory but I don't know how there's any way to know even what the term means. My idea of the events goes more like this: The sea is rising, at least because of the constant worldwide rain and perhaps also the fountains of the deep, any way it's rising up onto the land, which at that time was one single continent. It was rising from all sides of course, and its waves continued, reaching onto the land and receding and returning. High tides push them up farther and so on. It takes at least forty days for the land to be covered.As it rises it deposits sediments, I figure in accordance with the order illustrated in Walther's Law. It overtakes living things that so far have survived all the rain and the dumping of sediments into the sea which are now being redeposited on the land along with sediments from the sea itself, that become limestone.The animals that are left flee the rising water. Waves start to overtake their habitat. Soon the area is already layered but some still survive, moving ever inland to avoid the rising water, getting caught at times but escaping when the waves recede. Soon there is nothing but wet sediments beneath them. They leave tracks, long strides evident as they are running, some burrow, some dinosaur nests are picked up and floated along etc. Some raindrops even leave impressions before the next wave covers them. Eventually they can't outrun the water, eventually there is no land left. They leave the tracks when the tide is out, when it returns it overtakes and buries them in the new load of sediment it's carrying.Something like that.The fact that these impressions are recorded in flat flat solid rock that covers a huge area is evidence for this sort of scenario and against the absurd idea of landscapes having occupied the rock surface. Beach? Covering that much area? Wetlands? Have you ever seen an absolutely flat expanse of sediment called a wetland?Here's the flattest kind of wetland I've been able to find, and it's not exactly bare bald flat, it's got things growing on it, tracks could not be left on its surface. I know it's awfully insulting to think scientists would get anything wrong like thinking there ever were landscapes where there are now nothing but enormously extensive flat flat solid rocks, but I can't help myself, this is just ridiculous. It's hard to account for their mental lapse on this subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There aren't any layers in any version of the geological column as small as your Red Lake, the layers forming in which are also no doubt not anywhere near as flat either.

Gosh coyote, what can I say? I can't prove the dating methods are wrong, all I can do is collect other evidence that contradicts them, which I've done a pretty good job of. I'm sure eventually we'll understand why the dating methods are wrong, and some creationists have done work on that, but I'm not trying to answer all the Old Earth claims, I'm focused on the ones I know I understand best and I think the evidence I've collected strongly suggests your dating methods are going to have to go.

I never said the layers were ALWAYS flat, I've said they were all ORIGINALLY flat and there's plenty of evidence of layers that are still flat. Where they aren't flat the deformation in some cases can be shown to have occurred after they were all laid down, and I believe that's how it happened for all of them but the others are too deformed to demonstrate that. And not far back on this very thread there was general agreement that MOST of the contacts between layers are very tight with no signs whatever of erosion. The few places that erosion is seen can be explained as occurring between the layers after they were laid down.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Long time ago I heard from some creationist source that the layer we call the Redwall limestone is also found in the UK, but I just realized it can't span the ocean itself because the continents weren't yet split during the Flood. So I take it back: no layers of the geo column on the Atlantic floor at all. Any layers you find have been laid since the continents split. Perhaps there are some to be found on the Pacific floor, but the fountains of the deep should have stirred it all up beyond any hope of layers forming there. Layers still form, never said they didn't, but the Geological Column began and ended with the Flood.

Oh they are flat flat flat to the naked eye and even Edge the geologist calls them "tabular," so stop with the misrepresentations.

Yes I do mean stirring up the sediments in the oceans, of course they were stirred up. But they were sorted when they were deposited on the land. What's the problem?I don't know what this fallacy is called, it's at ;east a form of straw man argument, and you are resorting to a very common one here: exaggerating what I've said to the point of justifiably arguing that it's impossible. Why do you have to read that scouring off the land means to absolute perfect baldness? Obviously most of the land HAD to have been turned to mud by forty days and nights of rain, HAD to, so that most of it ended up washed into the ocean. Obviously if some animals survived it was not eroded down to baldness.So Capn Stormy got it wrong about what the scientists think about in situ landscapes when he said the tracks were laid on a beach or a wetland? And so many others here besides him have the same impression, not to mention people who ought to know affirming the idea in countless threads. Oh right, when I show how absurd the idea really is then you decide that isn't what was really meant.I believe I've answered well enough all the claims of "buried landscapes" and paleosols and so on. It's all illusory, the product of believing Old Earth theory and not anything actually provable from observation.

ExCUUUUSE me, but that is a STUPID question. The word you are leaving out is "ALL" as in "ALL LAID DOWN, the entire stack of layers, the complete Geological Column from Tapeats to Claron, from Cambrian to Holocene. I proved it over and over and over YEARS ago. NO TECTONIC DISTURBANCE SHOWN IN THE GRAND CANYON UNTIL AFTER ALL STRATA WERE LAID DOWN, NO CANYON CUT UNTIL; THEN, NO GRAND STAIRCASE CLIFFS CUT UNTIL THEN, NO EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS BUT PLENTY OF IT ON THE SURFACES EXPOSED AFTER ALL THE LAYERS WERE IN PLACE.Slay those dragons, HBD, they are corrupting your mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Geological Column is an identifiable stack of layers that were all laid down at the same time.

I've answered it all very very well. Sorry you are in thrall to the lies.

Conceptual means doesn't exist in reality, but it DOES exist in reality, just not all in one place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.