Summations Only

I'VE EXPLAINED< NOt IGNORED THE VERY FEW DISTURBANCES BETWEEN THE LAYERS IN THE GRAND CANYON. AND I DID NOT EXAGGERATE, IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BACK IN THE THREAD THAT MOST OF THE CONTACTS ARE TIGHT AND SHOW NO EROSION. IN ANY CASE THE DEGREE OF EROSION THAT DOES EXIST IS TEENY WEENY COMPARED TO WHAT WOULD BE EXPECTED OF MILLIONS OF YEARS AT THE SURFACE.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The mind rot in this place is staggering.

Geologists are very good at descriptive physical geology, delusional in their acceptance of the Old Earth interpretive scheme. Fortunately it doesn't really have a lot to do with their actual work, it's just window dressing to obscure the reality.Why don't you stick around more Dragon Boy? We could have dispensed with all this stupid stuff by now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know how much erosion there SHOULD be by noting how much there is on the surface now. A LOT more than is seen anywhere between layers of the Gological Column. LOTS AND LOTS more. I like all caps when I'm reacting to idiocies, they are very satisfying, and all the more so if they annoy you.

I can't even figure out what you are grossly misinterpreting in order to try to answer it.

Yeah my emotions do run away with me. The utterly stupid things people say against my arguments get to me. What difference could writing in all caps make when nothing I say gets the slightest fair hearing anyway? Who cares?nothing like that kind of erosion is between any of the layers either. Like Percy's "flat" fields there's nothing like them in the Geo Column strata.

StormMan was claiming that wetlands existed where there is now flat flat rock. He doesn't seem to have noticed that there is the same kind of terrain as the one I posted in his very own picture. Nobody seems to take into account how HUGE the extent of the rock strata actually are.As for ripples, any like those in the picture that appeared between layers could be seen at a distance and no such thing exists.

I guess the problem is just that you all live on some other planet.

I did not say that ripple impressions did not exist on the surface of the rocks, I said that ripples of the size in the picture you were talking about would be visible from a distancen and that THAT did not exist. Perhaps you didn't know what visible at a distance meant. It meant visible at the contact line between layers at a distance. You could see it, probably even in the walls of the Grand Canyon at quite some distance. The ripples that are seen in your pictures had to have been made on the surface of a just-deposited wet sediment like the tracks and the burrows and the raindrops, to be filled in and preserved by the next deposit of sediment. The picture of ripples in sand at the edge of a wetland would not be preserved in any case by any means.Another such misreading is Capt Stormfield's claim that organic matter would just compress down and become merged so completely with the sediment that it would not be at all evident on the surface of a single-sediment rock. I think that's wacko, sandstone is sandstone, limestone limestone etc., there was obviously no organic matter there; there was no wetland there ever. Why are there coal seams formed from organic matter if it supposedly just disappears when buried, leaving nothing but sediment? But I'm tired of arguing these obvious things.Oh and I might as well answer jar's silly remark about raindrop impressions. I already mentioned them. Like the tracks and the burrows they had to have been made when the rising water had just deposited a wet layer of sediment by a wave or a high tide and then retreated temporarily, to return in time to deposit a new load of sediment that filled the raindrop impressions. Sometime during the forty days and nights of rain I would suppose.This kind of misreading is exhausting and it happens all the time and I'm not going to stay around for more of it. Thank you and goodbye.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.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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

From Percy's Message 1272Here's a page illustrating a more commonly represented trilobite type in which the genal and pygidial spines are evident. And here's the picture: All it would take is the isolation of a portion of the population in which those features were somewhat larger than in others, so that over generations of breeding within the isolated population they would become exaggerated to the degree seen in the second illustration. This principle of exaggeration of a trait over generations is illustrated by Darwin's breeding of pigeons for that very purpose: to increase a particular trait. The same principle is seen in the Pod Mrcaru lizards through natural selection of larger head and jaw exaggerated over generations of breeding within the new population started with the ten original individuals.At the same time the pleural spines of the trilobite, those "leg" like things, would have been reduced in the original founding group. That's all it takes, isolation of individuals whose features are already exaggerated or reduced by generations of previous isolation events. They are all naturally occurring trilobite genetic possibilities, so they are all the same Kind.There is a great variety of trilobites for sure, but as you look through the images available on the web you should notice that they are all the same creature with different features either emphasized or deemphasized, but they all have the very same features. There is a very spider-like one whose pleural spines look like many long spider legs for instance, but it's still a trilobite and those are its pleural spines. Seems to me the original trilobite genome carried all these possible variations, and processes of selection through isolation over the generations caused the different features to emerge to characterize many different subspecies.And here's an oldie but goodie I've answered a million times already: Sorry but the only way to answer this kind of thing is through incredulity. The idea that this represents an actual riverbed is some kind of joke. A cartoon riverbed at best. It's a trough or a channel cut in pure limestone and filled with pure limestone, both flush with the level of the contact with the Redwall limestone above. This could only have formed during the deposition of the sediments in the Flood, and since it is flush with the Redwall, meaning the Temple limestone doesn't spill over the top of the Muav, that's evidence that the Redwall was already laid down, which is what leads me to interpret the channel as a form of karst cut in the Muav after deposition of Muav and Redwall both. The "landscape" explanation is ludicrous. But I know you'll go on affirming it against all reasonable possibilities anyway.Oh, and the geological column isn't at the bottom of the sea. There was no Atlantic when the strata were laid down, that opened up with the beginning of continental drift at the end of the Flood. Strata laid since then are not the geological column, which is a specific stack of layers with specific fossil contents that was over and done with at the end of the Flood. ALL the strata from Cambrian to Holocene were already laid down when the continents split apart. You might find some in the Pacific I suppose. Maybe, but there too any strata added after the continents split is not geological column. It's like once you've all learned the erroneous Old Earth Geological Timescale your minds are set in concrete and there's no shaking them loose. Sad.From Message 2281 Take the cores then and prove it. You will not find Jurassic fossils or sediment there, because the Atlantic isn't 180 million years old, it only started about 4500 years ago and it took all those years to widen to its present 3000 miles. Do, get some core samples to prove your claim: you'll prove mine instead. Oh and by the way, the Atlantic sea floor spreads in both directions from the Atlantic ridge, so whatever you find near the American coasts should also be found near the European and African coasts. Maybe the Pacific so take some cores there too. But not the Atlantic. Here's that articleTook a look. Lemme see. Earthquake in the Navajo Sandstone that didn't affect the Chinle or the Moenkapi formations beneath it? Or anything below that either? Hm. Kinda odd don't you think? They're finding this "earthquake" in the layers of sand itself? They're blowing hot air. Whatever shaking occurred came after all the strata were laid down. In other words this article is identifying the Jurassic, a time period, with the Navajo sandstone, a rock, as if they were one and the same. Anyone want to try to rationalize this? Let's hear just what relation you all think the rocks bear to the time period. I'll try not to burst out laughing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

About the fountains of the deep you say sea floor mapping done in WWII failed to discover any such thing. Imagine that. Did they have any idea what they would look like if they found them? It's not even clear what the fountains of the deep were, and as I said, some think they were volcanoes. Well, there are more volcanoes on the sea floor than on the land, so if that's what they were I'm sure the mappers found lots of them. The idea is that forty days and nights of rain over every square inch of the planet would do something like that, yes, but see below. Well, I've been considering recently how the pre-Flood world is thought to have been lush with vegetation, no deserts or unfertile areas, so if it was completely covered with plant life it would have kept producing new soil, loose stuff rather than rock, and the roots would have done two things: kept the soil from hardening, and held it all together so that it might not have been as easy to scour away even by forty days and nights of rain as I'd been thinking. There still had to be prodigious mud flows but perhaps not to the point of "denuding" the land entirely. And that huge amount of vegetation would account for all the coal found in the strata too.Also, much of the miles deep layers we see now would have been formed from sediments from the ocean rather than the land, the limestones and p;robably a lot of the sand too. So there would be more depth to the land now than before. All that really interests me about Walther's Law is that it is evidence that the rising sea deposits separated layers of sediments onto the land. That's very important evidence.And oh yes I do ignore a lot of what you write because I object to things you say about me among other things. If you want me to pay more attention stop the personal remarks or you'll have to put up with being ignored or answered just when I happen to feel like it. Which of course is possible even if you were always polite, but probably nowhere near as much. See above. Since I don't see a problem myself I don't know what yours is, but I can try again to spell it out.The sea water is rising. It's raining cats and dogs and the sea water is rising. It's ocean so the rising edge is led by waves, that break as they hit the land while the water continues beyond them. Since the water is rising from all directions there is no area for the animals to escape to except whatever inland area is not yet under water. The water continues further onto the land as the sea level is rising. High tides extend it even farther onto the land. It recedes after each wave and after each high tide, leaving new layers of slick wet sediment behind, then returns with a new load of sediment Animals still alive on the land have to keep moving further inland as the water encroaches on their habitats. It takes at least the forty days and nights to cover all the land, with the surviving animals moving ahead of it. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't escape but sometimes some do. Some of them leave tracks in the slick wet sediment left behind as the waves and tides recede. Eventually there is no land left and the water overtakes them, sometimes filling and preserving their tracks and burying the creatures themselves in the latest load of sediment.Sorry if this isn't clarifying. No need for proof, I admit it. That's the party line but the evidence of the strata themselves that supposedly represent such an idea is against it. Flat bald sediment with dead things buried in it is what actually existed at each time period in the past. Sheer fantasy belied by the actual facts. That's for sure. They died in the sediment-laden water that overtook and buried them and later became rock. And they were indeed deeply buried by some three miles depth of sedimentary layers left by the Flood. And it's been answered by me about a gazillion times. What is YOUR problem? That's for sure, there was only sand being deposited over thousands of square miles by the rising Flood -- alternating with silt and calcareous ooze and so on and so forth -- which accomplished the laying down of the entire geological/stratigraphic column in a few months. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your corrections are all a bunch of ad hoc nonsense. There could never have been any kind of landscape where any layered rock formation now exists. Any identification of rock with time is ludicrous, including any identification with pre-rock "sand dunes" or anything else pre-rock. I hope eventually this ridiculous imposition on the human mind is absolutely and totally debunked.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh you probably believe your stuff, but I believe mine. Some day yours will be exposed as ridiculous. I hope soon of course.

It's ad hoc whether you say it or the article says it. All made up to fit the ridiculous "landscape" interpretation of what is only now a flat sandstone rock in most places, and a water-swirled sandstone formation elsewhere.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not "on the spot" NOW, but still made up out of nothing because there is no justification at all for the "landscape" or time period interpretation of the rocks. They don't know when the rock was formed, it's all made up. NOTHING happened during the "Jurassic" period because there was no Jurassic period. If sand pipes indicate earthquakes they occurred after the whole geologic/stratigraphic column was laid down.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.