Summations Only

Interesting...Did you know that not all areas erode at the same rates? And that different areas are effected by erosion differently?Like... and... and the erosion that resulted from a Tsunami... and the marsh sands that Capt Stormfield posted... All of these images are areas of net erosion. The marshy areas from Capt Stormfield's image might be considered an area of sedimentation, but the sands are erosional - you can tell because of the ripple marks (ooo, we have seen those in between layers too!).Is that the kind of erosion you were expecting between the layers? cause that doesn't seem too unreasonable. Ok, if it makes you feel better. It just makes you look like a jerk, and I didn't think that was what you were going for. This is just a discussion, I am in control of my emotions. If you are trying to get me riled up in order to deflect the discussion away from the issues, then you are going to step up your game a bit. Otherwise, typing in all caps is a negative reflection on you, not me.HBD

Your response makes no sense to me. Here is the exchange again...Faith: There is not enough erosion between the layers to have been on the surface for millions of years.Me: How do you know how much erosion there SHOULD be?Faith: By looking at the surface now (the present is the key to the past)Me: Well, here is some pics of areas of net erosion that do not have a noticeable amount of relief as you say you expect. The reason is that not all areas experience erosion in the same way. ??????? Ripples are a couple inches high. You think you should be able to see them in pics of the GC or in your favorite cross section? I don't see how that is a valid objection. Now how am I to make sense of this since it is so obviously wrong? So it is obviously not true that "no such thing [as fossilized ripple marks] exists." What could you have possibly meant by the statement?It is very difficult to make sense of your objection to ancient landscapes being preserved in the rock record. You seem to think our scenario involves a massive block of sediment falling from above onto the existing landscape, but that's what your scenario postulates, so ... idk...Our scenario involves small amounts of sediment covering existing landscapes over long periods of time. If an area was covered by 1/2 of sediment per year, that would not disrupt the life that lived there - the critters and plants would just continue living 1/2 inch higher. Occasionally, a critter would be buried in such a way that it's skeleton would be preserved and eventually fossilized. Over a million years of that happening continuously, there would be a layer 500,000 inches high (~ 8 miles) and many different critters that represent life at various times. If the extent of the deposits also shifted laterally 1 inch every year, after a million years the area covered with sediment would extend at least 16 miles. Now what could happen in 100 million years?Now call all this an illusion if you wish, but at least recognize this is how we envision the sedimentary layers forming, not bare rock forming at the surface. Or whatever weird thing you have envisioned in your head.HBD

If someone responds with something "stupid" against your argument then it is on them, it should not affect your argument in such a way as to make you angry. Like when you respond with something stupid against my argument, it doesn't affect my argument one bit. Now if you denigrated something I held very dear with something that was true or partially true, I might get bothered because that might cause me to question that thing I held dear. But your stupid rebuttals against my arguments do not affect my arguments in any way. And you should feel the same way.I think you get angry because your core beliefs are being challenged and you hold your flood geology very, very dear and when it gets challenged with arguments you can't refute, you begin to doubt and question your beliefs. Then you blow up and run away and regroup... you convince yourself that you are right and then jump back in as if nothing ever happened. That's my point. It doesn't have the effect you want it to. But see this makes no sense since you are always going on about how flat, flat, flat the rocks are... just like "Percy's flat fields." I can not make sense of your objection. We do see those things in the geological record. Erosion does flatten surfaces but not all erosion occurs equally. Some areas are flat others are not. If you expect to see intact landscape preserved between layers, that;s not how our model works. That is what we should see if a global flood occurred. So if we don't see that...So it seems to me as if you are actually objecting to flood geology but attributing that objection to the mainstream geology without really understanding what you are objecting to. "Not Even Wrong."HBD

I still don't get your objection... you can't see 2" high ripples from a mile away in a picture? In the Grand Canyon or anywhere in the world?It's easy to "misread" something that makes no sense. Well, I'm sorry you have such a hard time understanding all of this. It may come from the fact that you are not willing to learn anything other than what you think applies to your argument. I have no doubt that you are intelligent enough to make sense of all this if you would just quit making things up and just learn about reality. I have tried to write things so you wouldn't misunderstand, but you have such a preconceived idea about geology that has nothing to do with reality that it is just inevitable. Ok, goodbye. Talk to you in a couple days/weeks and we can start all over again. Maybe we can go back to you misunderstanding genetics? or evolutionary processes?HBD

Soil is 50% water and air, so compaction eliminates 50% of the volume of the soil mass. The remaining mass is about 90 - 95% sediments and <10% organic matter. Organic matter leaches from the soil as water percolates through, leaving just the sediment.Read any actual description of a sedimentary layer and you will see that the sediment is a mixture of different types of sediments. Layers of pure sediment are rare (Coconino sandstone is one of those exceptions). Paleosols are lithified soils that have retained their soil-like characteristics - the organics have not completely decomposed and leached out. They often are recognized by containing intact root systems. Paleosols are rocks, albeit not well compacted. Interpreting them as being transported intact is simply avoiding the issue, not providing a reasonable explanation. We have shown you "flat" on the earth's surface.Layers are not made up of "single-sediments" but of mixtures of sediment types. The layers are named and described based on predominant sediments. Look up some actual geological description of layers, you'll see this to be true. We have shown you "variegated in many ways" within the geological record, but you dismiss those features as having to have been produced by water running between the layers. There is no reason to think that other than maintaining the idea that the strata are "flat and uniform." Channels and relief cut into the layers means they are "variegated in many ways." It is honestly impossible to figure out what you are imagining here and why you can't understand the explanations we have given. You depiction of these "problems" make no sense and I just cannot figure out why you think it happens in this way.The expectations for what you think should have happened during the formation of the geological column is more like what I would expect from a flood type situation. So it is hard to understand why you think slow deposition over long periods of time should work the way you describe. It seems totally backwards and is difficult to understand what you are envisioning.HBD

Yea, I saw a message the other day that I wanted to reply to but now I can't find it - it must be buried pretty deep.There's probably a lot of the messages in the last couple days that can be ignored or at least not responded to. These discussions always seem to devolve into "1001 things Faith is wrong about." It's hard enough to keep up with just a few.HBD