Summations Only

You haven't mustered any evidence. You've made many erroneous statements that have been immediately rebutted. You ignore the rebuttals, later repeat your original errors, then pat yourself on the back for doing such a great job.Trump's just like you. He lies or makes blatant errors of fact and then just never backs down no matter how untruthful or stupid it makes him look. "My inaugural crowd was the biggest in history. Illegal immigrants cast millions of votes for Hillary Clinton costing me the popular vote. Mexico will pay for the wall. Rex Tillerson will not be fired. There were fine people on both sides. Puerto Rico is doing great. I'm making no money on the tax cuts. Obama wiretapped me. I don't even know Putin. Melania loves me. Etc..." (I made up the last one )Why not just play things straight? Make points based on scientific evidence, respond to rebuttals, act like a grownup.--Percy

With the exception of the occasional correct statement, your evidence and arguments have been error-filled, ignorant, wrong, misguided, and immediately rebutted, not once but multiple times over the years. You respond with more error-filled evidence and argument which is also immediately rebutted. You repeat this for a while, then you disappear for a time only to return and begin the cycle all over again from scratch. I don't think there has ever been a time when your explanation about tracks and burrows and so forth haven't been immediately rebutted. Answers that have been shown wrong are not answers:

• T: "How much is 2+2, Johnny?"
• S: "I answered that question yesterday."
• T: "But you gave the wrong answer of 5."
• S: "5 is the correct answer."
• T: "No, Johnny, 5 is incorrect."
• S: "No it's not incorrect, 5 is the right answer."
• T: "Why do you think 5 is correct?"
• S: "Because I have my own math paradigm. Your math paradigm is wrong."
• T: "Can you explain your paradigm"
• S: "Yes, my paradigm says your paradigm is wrong."
• T: "That's not an explanation, that's just a declaration. Let's use our counting line again to check the answer."
• S: "Your math paradigm has left you unable to think outside the box of assumptions like your counting line."
• T: "There's no evidence that the counting line is wrong and a great deal of evidence that it is correct.
• S: "Well, your wrong, you're treating me unfairly, you're not giving my ideas fair consideration, I've answered all your questions, if you don't understand that's your problem. The answer is 5. I'm leaving."

And so it goes with you, for years and years. Great start. Now explain why it would be impossible for anything to live on an ancient landscape very similar to the landscapes we see around the world today. Until you have evidence of your Flood, it is not a reasonable explanation. Here's an image of your big illusion showing a Temple Butte river bed: Where is your geological evidence that successive tides deposited the sediments of the stratigraphic columns? I thought they had to run out onto the flats between high tides in order to leave tracks and dig burrows? I'm sorry your body is confined, but that's no excuse because your mind isn't. You can still choose to freely consider the evidence instead of regurgitating and repeating stock answers unhindered by supporting evidence, you can still respond to rebuttals instead of tactically avoiding what you can't answer.--Percy

Magma doesn't exist everywhere beneath the Earth's surface. It's exists in pockets here and there around subduction zones, and forms and rises to the sea floor at mid-oceanic ridges. Definitely only a very small proportion of the ocean floor is underlain by magma. Maybe you're thinking of the molten and liquid part of the Earth's core, the outer core, about 1800 miles deep and consisting of nickel and iron, not magma.So what is beneath most sea floor? We know the answer from the many times geologists have drilled deeply into the sea floor and extracted lengthy cores of sedimentary layers. More well known are the many offshore oil drilling rigs that drill miles into the sea bed and do not encounter magma. The deepest ever drilled is around 35,000 feet, more than 6 miles. No magma.Sediments lie on the sea floor. Directly beneath the topmost sediments are more sediments. Directly beneath those sediments are more sediments. It's sediments all the way down until you hit igneous rock (quite likely produced at a mid-oceanic ridge), eventually mantle rock, and eventually the outer core.--Percy

This is just a description of what you think happened, not an explanation of how you arrived at your conclusions. We want to know the evidence and the thinking processes around that evidence that drove your conclusions. Here are a few questions whose answers would help us understand your views:

• How did the ocean keep all the different types of sediments separate? Sand is heavier/denser than silt, mud or clay particles, so for example, how did the ocean keep the sand that created the Tapeats (near the base of the Grand Canyon) from the sand that created the Coconino (near the top of the Grand Canyon)? What evidence do you have of processes that can do such things?
• How did the oceans sort sediments according to radiometric age? Sedimentary layers cannot be radiometrically dated directly but are indirectly dated by embedded volcanic deposits of mud, ash or basalt, so the real question is how the oceans sorted volcanic deposits with the sediments in such a way that they were ordered by increasing age.
• Radiometric age also changes laterally along strata. For instance, the volcanic deposits in the Tapeats get older from east to west. What evidence do you have of a process that could cause this?
• What evidence do you have of a process that could keep fossils sorted by degree of difference from modern forms so that no rabbit was ever buried with a trilobite, no pterodactyl with a bat?
• Given that the oceans were full of recently dead life, how was it submerged into the "correct" collection of sediments instead of floating on the surface?
• Does any evidence tell you what order the sediments were kept in while in the ocean? It would seem to make the most sense that they would be in inverse order, with, for example, the Supergroup sediments being at the top so they could be deposited first, and the Claron nearer the bottom so it could be deposited much later.
• You say that waves formed the layers, but in the past you've said it was tides. Which is it, and what evidence tells you which it was?
• As a wave or tide sweeping across a landscape reached its limit, stopping and then retreating, this would have left an edge of sedimentary deposits. Each wave or tide would have left an edge where it stopped. What is the evidence of these edges in strata?
• Did a wave or tide sweeping across a landscape leave more sediments near the coast and less where it stopped? Or did it leave the same amount of sediments throughout its range of travel? Whichever way it was, what is the evidence that tells you how the sediments were distributed across the landscape.
• What evidence tells you that some fossils are of life that ran out onto the mudflats after the wave or tide receded, while other fossils are of already deceased life carried in on the wave or tide?
• Given their relatively slow speed, what evidence do you have of how worms ran out onto the mudflats to dig wormholes?
• Does the evidence tell you that the dinosaurs ran out onto the mudflats to build nests and lay eggs, or does it say the nests with eggs were delivered by the waves or tides? Whichever way it is, what is the evidence?
• What evidence do you have of the processes that allowed the oceans to keep each dinosaur species together with nests of that species
• What evidence do you have of how termite nests came to be in the sedimentary strata. Did termites run out onto the mudflats to build nests, or were the nests carried there by waves or tides?

Precipitation is when a compound precipitates out of solution and cannot be according to size, so what you must really mean is sediments falling out of suspension by size/density. Since we observe no sorting by size/density in the strata, this could not have been a factor. Wave action is too energetic to deposit anything but heavy coarse particles like sand. Smaller, lighter particles like mud, silt and clay will only fall out suspension in quieter waters further from shore. You've crammed many errors into a small space. Precipitation can be a partial factor in calcareous sediments, but not in any of the other major strata rock types like sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, slate and shale. Walther's Law is about a land/water boundary moving very slowly across a landscape. The most common examples of Walther's Law are transgressing and regressing seas. To describe a common way the process works, sediments from land are delivered to coastlines where wave action separates the fine particles from the heavy. The heavy particles, sand mostly, is deposited at the coastline. The finer particles are suspended in the ocean waters until they're carried to quieter waters away from shore where they gradually fall out of suspension.Coastlines move slowly. The long time periods allow great depths of sand to be deposited at the coasts and great depths of siltstone, mudstone, slate and shale at some distance from shore. Great depths of calcareous sediments/precipitates are deposited in warm shallow seas far from shore. I rebutted your Berthault claims in Message 1255. You didn't reply. You could reply now, but until then we'll have to consider rebutted the possibility that the processes described by Berthault played any role. The Mount St. Helens deposits are a single layer of unlithified mud and ash, not sedimentary deposits. Please describe for us these many other ways sediments could be deposited by a Flood. Technically this must be true, since one cannot withhold knowledge one does not have. What evidence tells you that the Sauk and Tippecanoe sequences were formed by a single wave or tide? Since you believe rock forms by drying, why do you say lithification requires great weight? Recall that you believe the layers visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon were still soft and wet when the Flood created the canyon, and only hardened later. Then why are the layers high above the Kaibab like the Claron over at Brian Head just as lithified as the Kaibab, and the Kaiparowits just below the Claron is very hard sandstone. What evidence can you present that there was tectonic upheaval coincident with a global flood. You were replying to Minnemooseus, who didn't reply. I assumed he was going to reply, which is why I didn't reply myself. I'll reply to it when I find a free moment. This isn't true. Things that happen leave evidence behind. If there were really a global flood 4500 years ago that was responsible for all the world's geology then the evidence would be copious and everywhere, but it isn't. I think you mean sharp contacts, not tight contacts. Sharp contacts are evidence of an interval of erosion between a lower stratum and the deposition of the next. When deposition is continuous across strata boundaries then the transition from one strata to the next is not sharp but gradual, such as the transitions from Tapeats Sandstone to Bright Angel Shale to Muav Limestone, which is a classic transgressive sea sequence. What is your evidence that any of these geological strata took only hours to form? Long before the deposition of the strata forming the walls of the Grand Canyon there was a great deal of tectonic activity that tilted the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup. This was followed by about a billion year interval that included a great deal of erosion of Supergroup layers before deposition resumed with the Tapeats.--Percy

Well, it can't be said that you don't love wallowing in ignorance. Every time you encounter true knowledge you run the other way. It's a wonder that flim-flam men haven't reduced you to complete poverty. If I'm right in thinking that you're only saying that stratigraphic columns exist that fit into the framework of the geologic column, then you are correct. If by "formation" you mean a particular stratigraphic column then this would be correct. The geologic column is not fully represented at any one location anywhere in the world, but all stratigraphic columns throughout the world fit into the conceptual framework of the geologic column.But the way you actually worded this makes it seem like "formation" refers to geologic column, and if so then that is dead wrong. The geologic column is conceptual. It does not refer to any particular formation. Undeniably true. Nobody said anything different. It's not clear what you're trying to say here. If it's only that the strata of the Grand Canyon fit into the conceptual framework of the geologic column, then that would be correct. No one said anything like this.An analogy to the geologic column might be The Periodic Table of the Elements. It's a conceptual framework into which the elements of the universe are placed. It isn't an actual element itself. The geologic column is a similar thing. It's a conceptual framework into which the stratigraphic columns around the world can be placed. It isn't an actual stratigraphic column itself.Here's the definition of geologic column you found, perhaps at Merriam Webster, but it appears at many websites:

quote:

---

a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time 2
: the sequence of rock formations in a geologic column

---

Dictionary definitions of scientific terms can sometimes be inadequate or garbled, and I can understand how this one has misled you. A slight rewriting makes it much easier to understand the concept they were trying to communicate:

quote:

---

a columnar diagram indicating the subdivisions of geologic time into which rock formations of a locality or region can be arranged

---

EvC's glossary defines it this way:

quote:

---

A diagram representing divisions of geologic time and the rock units formed during each major period.

---

Wikipedia defines it this way, coming straight out and calling it the geologic time scale:

quote:

---

The geologic time scale (GTS) is a system of chronological dating that relates geological strata (stratigraphy) to time.

---

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines it this way:

quote:

---

Geologic column and its associated time scale

​

The end product of correlation [of geologic and fossil data] is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world’s individual rock sequences into a single sequence.

---

Hope this helps.--Percy

I think in trying to be brief that you've been inaccurate or at least misleading in describing your views. You have the flood depositing sediments on land through a process of successive waves or tides. After one wave or tide has flowed across the landscape, deposited its sediments, and then receded, presumably there is no life left on the newly deposited mudflat.This means that before creatures could be present on the mudflat to flee the next wave or tide that they must first have scampered onto the mudflat. Therefore the tracks could represent creatures coming or going.About things floating there, I presume you mean things like dinosaur nests and termite nests. This raises a question: What is your evidence for processes that allow the ocean to hold and keep separate a large variety of sediments sorted by a particular order with no regard for size and density, and also keeping all the life of the appropriate type with the right sediments, and also keeping the floating things with the right sediments even though they'll have to remain submerged until it's their sediment's turn to be washed onto land by a wave or tide, and also keeping volcanic deposits in radiometric order and with the right sediments?--Percy

The geologic column is worldwide, both land and sea. Here's an image of the geologic column that isn't as pretty as many others, but I picked it because the numbers are larger and you shouldn't have much trouble reading it: The Atlantic Ocean is only around 180 million years old. That means that the Atlantic sea floor closest to the American coast has sedimentary layers that go back about 180 million years. If we were to take cores a mile or two down we would find sedimentary layers from the Jurassic, just like we can find sedimentary layers from the Jurassic in the Grand Staircase region, like the Navajo Sandstone. The geologic column applies to strata on both land and sea.By the way, the Navajo Sandstone contains evidence of Earthquakes. Gee, imagine that, tectonism in the Grand Staircase region while the strata were still being deposited. See Ancient Dunes Preserve Signs of Dinosaur-Shaking Earthquakes.--Percy

In this paragraph you're talking about the fountains of the deep: In the years after WWII the necessities of modern submarine warfare required detailed mapping of sea floors all around the world. It was this mapping effort that provided the clues that led to the discovery of sea floor spreading and magnetic striping and plate tectonics, but one thing that was not discovered was any sign of fountains of the deep. But before the land was covered with water wasn't it denuded of all soil and sediments, which were washed into the sea?I have a question. Today the strata on land are very deep, in some cases two or three miles deep. They're lithified into rock because of the great pressure of being deeply buried. Before the Flood everything composing today's land strata must also have been on the land, again to depths of as much as two or three miles. With the great pressure of being deeply buried why wasn't most of this material lithified into rock, making it impossible for the 40 days and 40 nights of rain to wash it into the sea? You're just going to ignore every time I explain how you don't understand Walther's Law, so there's no point explaining it yet again, but you don't understand it. This is the same issue I asked about above, about why the sediments on land before the flood never lithified, but after the flood washed all the sediments into the sea and then redeposited them on land they did lithify. How could this be? Like HereBeDragons I can make no sense of this. I can't even figure out the right questions to ask. Can you please try again. Well, here's proof that you either a) Don't read what people post; b) Don't understand what people post; c) Don't remember what people post; d) All of the above.Earth's surface at pretty much all times in the past was pretty much like Earth's surface today. There would have been plants and animals and soil and rivers and lakes and oceans and rain and snow and deserts and prairies and forests and all that stuff. Life in the past did not live on a rock. Sedimentary deposits only turn to rock after being deeply buried. This has been explained about a gazillion times. What is your problem?What is "Beach? Covering that much area?" about? Is this about the Tapeats? If so then this has been explained about a gazillion times, too. The Tapeats was created as a sea slowly transgressed from west to east over millions of years. Sand was deposited to depths around a couple hundred feet at the coastline, so as the coastline slowly moved eastward with the sea's transgression it left in its wake a layer of sand a couple hundred feet thick. After maybe twenty million years the sea had transgressed maybe a thousand miles leaving behind it a thousand mile wide layer of sand. There was never any thousand-mile beach.Would you please learn how geology understands Walther's Law to work? You don't have to believe that's really what happens, but it would truly be a great aid to your understanding of what geology believes happened in the past if you understood it. Says the person with a 17 year record of uncomprehension.--Percy

First, you mean stratigraphic column, not geologic column which is conceptual.Second, stratigraphic columns contain many layers smaller than a mile long lake. May I remind you of this small piece of river in the Temple Butte formation: Flat is not a requirement. Whatever becomes buried, such as streams, rivers, lakes, canyons, monadnocks, etc., is preserved in the geological record. But a great many geographic features are destroyed as a sea transgresses across a landscape. The wave action at the coastline is like a giant monster chomping away at a landscape, inch by inch transforming whatever was there into a layer of sand.--Percy

If your idea of a good job is to make a series of mistaken and misinformed statements that are immediately rebutted and then to ignore the rebuttals, then yes, you're doing a great job. How is something as simple as "radiometric decay leaves daughter elements behind" going to be found wrong? Especially when different radiometric elements with different decay times and different daughter elements give the same answers.At nuclear facilities all around the world are huge numbers of spent fuel rods, no longer able to help drive the reactor because too much of the original radioactive element has decayed into daughter elements. It isn't like it isn't an extremely well understood process. The RATE group did not find any issues with radiometric decay. You try to challenge geological science and evolution all the time, you just don't succeed. Your participation here indicates that you understand very little. You mostly repeat tall tales unencumbered by supporting evidence. You only cite the evidence of geology or make things up. Any claims you've made of geological evidence supporting your position have been immediately rebutted, which you either ignore or don't understand. Ignoring rebuttals is your favorite approach - you've ignored 45% of the replies to you, nearly half.--Percy

I don't recall any general agreement about this at all. First, sudden shifts from one strata to another are called sharp contacts or abrupt contacts, not tight contacts. Look it up.Second, it definitely isn't true that there is no sign of erosion between most strata. Using the Grand Canyon as an example, most of the strata contacts represent unconformities, and of those unconformities most have evidence of erosion. We can go through them one by one, from bottom to top. I used Wikipedia and the USGS website for reference. Keep in mind there are two major types of contacts between strata, conformable (continuous deposition) and uncomformable (non-continuous deposition either because of erosion or a temporary cessation of deposition).

• Grand Canyon Supergroup/Tapeats Sandstone: Incredibly obvious angular unconformity created by erosion.
• Tapeats Sandstone/Bright Angel Shale: Conformable contact indicated by continuous deposition with intertonguing and both vertical and lateral transitions from brown sandstone (Tapeats) to green siltsonte (Bright Angel Shale)
• Bright Angel Shale/Muav Limestone: Conformable contact indicated by intertonguing and transitions of variable thickness.
• Muav Limestone/Temple Butte Limestone: Unconformity with deep erosional channels cut into the top of the Muav Limestone by streams.
• Temple Butte Limestone/Redwall Limestone: Unconformity with erosion channels 5-10 feet deep in the top of the Temple Butte Limestone
• Redwall Limestone/Surprise Canyon: Unconformity with much erosion. Surprise Canyon is absent throughout most of the Grand Canyon region, but where present it lies atop the Redwall Limestone. The Redwall Limestone surface is a karst topography consisting of sinks, caves, underground channels and paleovalleys filled with Surprise Canyon deposits.
• Surprise Canyon/Supai Group: Unconformity with small erosion channels cut into the Surprise Canyon layer.
• Redwall Limestone/Supai Group: Unconformity with small erosion channels cut into the Redwall Limestone layer.
• Supai Group/Hermit Shale: Unconformity with erosion channels cut into the Supai Group ranging from 10 to 130 feet deep.
• Hermit Shale/Coconino Sandstone: Unconformity most likely created by a lack of deposition and not erosion. The contact between these two layers represents a marine regression, since heavier/denser sediments (sand) overlie light sediments (silt and mud).
• Coconino Sandstone/Toroweap Formation: Unconformity indicated by truncation through erosion of the uppermost extent of the Coconino.
• Toroweap Formation/Kaibab Limestone: Contact includes both conformable and unconformable sections.
  Unconformable sections are indicated by solution erosion of Toroweaps' limestone components and by channel erosion into the Toroweaps to depths as great as 150 feet.
• Kaibab Limestone/Moenkopi Formation: Unconformity indicaates by peleovalleys as much as several hundred feet deep and karst sections later filled by Moenkopi sediments. The Moenkopi Formation is present in only one small section in the Grand Canyon, but is of course fully represented in much of the Grand Staircase region.

The above evidence shows that there are unconformities between most Grand Canyon layers, and that most of the unconformities have obvious evidence of erosion. I therefore very much doubt your statement that there was ever any general agreement in this thread about the lack of evidence of erosion at unconformable contacts, and in any case the evidence says otherwise.Again, "tight contacts" may not be correct terminology. If you use Google Image and look up "tight contacts" you won't see anything like what you have in mind. If you instead type in "sharp contacts" to Google Image I think you'll see exactly the kind of thing you were thinking of. Perhaps one of the geologists can comment on the definitions of these terms. Erosion is a surface process that results from wind, rain and flowing water. Once a layer of sediments is buried there is no longer any erosion because they are completely protected from wind, rain and flowing water (the water in aquifers seeps through the interstices of rock that is porous - it doesn't flow and it doesn't cause erosion, though it will certainly dissolve minerals like iron and manganese). Limestone layers can be subject to dissolution by groundwater, but that's not erosion and it happens within a layer of limestone, not between layers, and certainly not for layers that aren't limestone.--Percy

By definition you're speaking nonsense. Here is the geologic column, and I once again emphasize that it is a conceptual framework: The Quaternary is the last two million years. Most sea floors around the world, including the Atlantic Ocean, contain sediments from the last two million years that fit into the conceptual framework of the geologic column. Therefore your statement that "no layers of the geo column on the Atlantic floor at all" could not be more in error. By definition this is wrong. Since layers still form today, and since the geologic column extends from today back into the past, layers that fit into the conceptual framework of the geologic column are still forming today.You can believe in the flood while still learning proper geological terminology.--Percy

From some of your messages beginning at Message 2231: A constant stream of stuff like this is why your complaints of poor treatment are met with derision by participants and are ignored by moderators.From your Message 2266: That's as far as I've read, but I'm making a bet that you did not leave, checking now...Bingo, I win, Faith lies about leaving again.--Percy

This is the same deficient argument you used before. Humans and chimpanzees are far more similar than those two trilobite species.Are these the same species of halibut or different species: They're different species. The first is a Pacific halibut, the other an Atlantic.It is obvious to everyone that you just make up whatever stories are necessary to support your religiously based beliefs. It is weird that after all this time it isn't clear to you how transparent what you're doing is. In this case you're just making up stories about trilobites because it suits your purpose. There's no actual evidence behind what you're saying. Were it convenient to your purposes you would argue the opposite, and it would make no difference to you either way since none of it is underpinned by evidence. As explained several times already, the Pod Mrcaru lizards are the exact same species as the original population on Pod Kopiste. They are a different breed at best. It remains a mystery to everyone why you think incredulity and name calling like "joke" and "cartoon" and "ludicrous" carry any weight. Anyone can say such things about anything and they would be equally meaningless. Why do you not realize this, even after all this time here? This is an accurate description. There is no evidence of karst-like structures in the Muav. It's a stream channel, common at the contact between the Muave and the Temple Butte (where the Temple Butte is present - it's not present everywhere in the Grand Canyon), and with the Redwall Limestone (where the Temple Butte is not present). When you come up with a reasonable possibility supported by evidence you let us know. By definition it must be. The Wikipedia article on the Geologic Column describes it from the present all the way back to 4.6 billion years ago. The sea floor, no more than a couple hundred million years old, fits neatly into the geologic column. Even your Flood scenario where the sea floor sediments are no more than 4500 years old fits neatly into the geologic column, just at a different point. Sediments accumulate very slowly in the deep ocean, maybe an inch per thousand years. If the sea floor truly began receiving sediments only 4500 years ago then the sediment depth would only be four or five inches, and it would be roughly the same depth everywhere. Instead the Atlantic's greatest sediment depth is around a kilometer at the greatest distances from the mid-oceanic ridge, while the Pacific's is around half a kilometer. Sediment depths near mid-oceanic ridges are negligible, which makes sense since that sea floor is relatively new and has had little time to accumulate sediments.This difference in sediment depth between Atlantic and Pacific might seem unexpected given the greater size of the Pacific, but the rate of sea floor spreading is more rapid in the Pacific, and so there is less time in the Pacific for sediments to accumulate on the sea floor before they are subducted and disappear into the Earth's interior. By definition you are wrong. All sedimentary deposits from the beginning of time until today fit into the geologic column. Look it up. The Earth's past includes multiple episodes of continents splitting apart, but I assume you're referring to the splitting up of the most recent supercontinent, Pangaea. Evidence indicates it began breaking up around 175 million years ago during the Jurassic. No Holocene deposits existed at that time. Before you transform this fiction into reality I think you need to find some actual geological errors as well as some evidence supporting your views. So far you have none of either. There's ton's of information on the web about the age of sea floor cores. This one's from the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Marine Sediment:

quote:

---

The sedimentary core samples recovered by the Glomar Challenger strongly support the seafloor-spreading hypothesis. No deep-sea sediments older than 150,000,000 years were discovered, indicating that the seafloor is relatively young. Furthermore, the sediments become progressively older and thicker with increasing distance from the ridge crests.

---

Here's another about short cores (because they were looking for climate information over only the last 100,000 years) from the Atlantic deep ocean, Atlantic Deep-Sea Sediment Cores:

quote:

---

Variations in the planktonic Foraminifera in 108 of the cores and extrapolation of rates of sediment accumulation determined by 37 radiocarbon dates in 10 cores show that the last period of climate comparable with the present ended about 60,000 years ago.

---

But you wanted information about deep sea cores for the Jurassic, so take a look at Studies in Geophysics: Climate in Earth History: The Jurassic Climate. In this quote, they bemoan the lack of data for the Jurassic:

quote:

---

For the Jurassic, we are denied the excellent information of oceanic surface-and bottom-water temperatures obtained from oxygen isotope analysis of microfossils in deep-sea drilling cores of Cretaceous and Cenozoic strata. Furthermore, Jurassic fossils have been extinct too long to have close modern relatives whose climatic tolerances are precisely known. In the following sections of this paper the principal climatic criteria are briefly outlined and the evidence for climatic changes through space and time discussed.
...
Unfortunately, there is only a negligible record of Jurassic microfossils in deep-sea drilling cores, from which one might expect to obtain more reliable results.

---

In other words, though much data for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous was found in deep-sea drilling cores, not much was found for the older Jurassic. Apparently the oldest sea floor is not 200 million years as I thought but only about 150 million years old, which is about the time the Jurassic was ending.But obviously deep-sea drilling cores have revealed sediments from as much as 150 million years ago. Yes, of course. You're not saying anything that everyone else didn't already know. Why do you think there is something special about the Pacific?About earthquake evidence in the Navajo sandstone, you don't really have a serious response, but I see PaulK responded already in Message 2286.--Percy

You seem to be responding to my Message 2282. The fountains of the deep are your idea - do you have any idea what they look like? Volcanos? Really? Looking this up I see that water vapor is the most common volcanic gas. Is that what you're claiming, that water vapor emitted during the simultaneous eruption of many undersea volcanos created the water for the Flood? Wouldn't that cook the planet? Is there any evidence of the simultaneous eruption of many undersea volcanos about 4500 years ago? What you're saying isn't really clear, but sedimentary layers on land can be miles deep, and plant life on the surface won't have any effect beyond a depth of maybe 10 feet at most. Speculating about vegetation doesn't buy you anything. Where sediments on land were buried to any significant depth they would have been lithified and incapable of being washed away by a flow of water. Anywhere sediments on the sea floor were buried to any significant extent they would have been lithified and incapable of being broken up into tiny sediments again. Plus there isn't much sand in the ocean - that's a coastal phenomenon, or did you miss that in all the discussion of Walther's Law? Plus mudstone, siltstone, shale and slate are near shore deposits, so there isn't much of those in the ocean either. This means there would have been insufficient sand and shale in the ocean to create the extent of these deposits on land that we see today.And where would all the limestone come from in the mere couple thousand years since the creation of the world? Accelerated life along with accelerated deposition? Were all calcareous deposits scoured from the sea floor with none remaining? Most of the sea floor is pelagic deposits, and there are very few pelagic strata on land. Were pelagic deposits left behind while calcareous deposits were scoured away? How did this happen? Where are the pelagic deposits that were left behind?This means that your ideas won't work whether the source of your sediments was land or sea. If the sediment source was land then under great depth they would have lithified and remained there no matter how much it rained. And if the sediment source were the ocean then there were insufficient amounts of sand and shale to create the sand and shale strata we see today, there was insufficient time to create the amount of calcareous material, and we should see much more pelagic material than we do. Walther's Law applies to slowly transgressing or regressing seas, not to sudden incursions of water onto land. Water possesses no magical sorting properties, not even during a flood. The sedimentary sequences resulting from Walther's Law are caused by distance from shore, and that distance has to be maintained for a long time in order to produce sediments of significant depth. If you don't want your behavior commented upon, behave like an adult. As I've pointed out, they start with you. Do you think it says anything about you that the way you treat others is done with malice and forethought? How far inland does each wave or tide go (I'll just call them waves from now on)? You should be able to learn this through examination of the strata, since each wave leaves "new layers of slick wet sediment behind," but only as far as that wave went. That means there should be an edge of sediment at the limit of each wave.And how deep a load of sediment does each wave deposit? Shouldn't you be able to tell by examination of the strata?So I'm looking for two pieces of information:

• How far inland does each wave go?
• How deep a load of sediment does each wave deposit?

Then I can consider a region like that around Brian Head, which has a couple miles of sediment lying beneath it, and get a feel for how it might have happened. For example, let's say you tell me that each wave went a mile, and that the depth of sediment deposited was 10 feet (If you don't like the mile of travel and 10 feet of sediment for each wave then just plug in your own numbers). I can then consider the scenario where the rising waters of the ocean are within a mile of where Brian Head is today, but they haven't gotten there yet. This raises the question, "How will that next mile be deposited?"Will it be like this:

• First the first 10 feet of the Tapeats Sandstone will be deposited. Let's say the total thickness of the Tapeats will eventually be 200 feet, so it will take 20 waves. The first wave sweeps a mile across the landscape and deposits 10 feet of sand, then recedes. At the edge of that mile the sand is now 10 feet higher than the land beyond it.
• Now the next wave of Tapeats sand rolls a mile across the landscape and deposits another 10 feet of sand, then recedes. At the edge of that mile the sand will now be 20 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Successive waves roll inland a mile and each deposits 10 feet of Tapeats sand and then recedes. When the Tapeats is completely deposited the sand will be 200 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Now the first wave of mud/silt for the Bright Angel Shale layer rolls a mile across the landscape, deposits 10 feet of mud and silt, then recedes. This happens 30 more times for a total depth of Bright Angel Shale sediments of 300 feet. The total height of sediments at the edge of that mile is now 500 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Now the waves calcareous sediments for the Muav Limestone begin rolling across that mile of landscape, depositing their sediments to a depth of 10 feet, then receding. When all is done the thickness of the Muav Limestone sediments is 400 feet, and the total height of sediments at the edge of that mile is now 900 feet higher than the land beyond.
• Then the waves for the Temple Butte Limestone and the Redwall Limestone and the Supai Group and the Hermit Shale and all the rest up to the Claron roll across that mile of landscape, deposit their sediments, and recede. The total height of sediments at the edge of that mile of landscape is a couple miles higher than the land beyond. We have reached Brian Head and the ocean is lapping at its door.
• Now the next mile beyond Brian Head will be deposited, again beginning with the first 10 feet of the Tapeats. A wave containing a load of Tapeats Sand is just beginning to roll past Brian Head. But there's a problem. The land beyond Brian Head is now a couple miles lower than Brian Head. Instead of rolling across the landscape beyond Brian Head the wave instead pours over the edge of the 2 mile height of sediments like a giant waterfall.

Well, that can't be right. Even if you plug in much bigger numbers, like a hundred miles of travel across the landscape for each wave and 100 feet of sediment delivered, because at the end of that hundred miles after all the strata are deposited you'll still have a 2 mile waterfall. And such huge waves don't give your animals any chance to leave footprints and dig burrows on the mudflats.So how does this work? Until the water arrives, how do they know to leave their habitat? Isn't it already too late? Not having that kind of reasoning ability, how do the "surviving animals" know which way to go to stay ahead of the water? Why is it even necessary to your scenario that any of the animals in flooded territory survive, since there are still plenty of animals in regions not yet flooded. Is it because you need footprints and burrows? Well, sure, in massive chaos all things possible could happen. So some are caught up in the water but don't drown, and then instead of being drawn out to sea in the receding water they escape and leave tracks. Is this when the chipmunks dig burrows? How about the worms? No need to admit it, we already know. Strata contain the record of what lived upon and above its original sediments. Have you forgotten that you have no facts? The only facts belong to geology, and those facts say that the world of the past was much like the world of today. Sure the continents were different and the life was different and the oceans were different, but what we see in the strata was that there was still land and rivers and life and so on. You're misinterpreting what I said. You were accusing us of absurdly believing that life in the past lived on a slab of rock. I was only explaining that we do not believe that. This was part of the explanation. We don't believe that life in the past lived on a slab of rock because a sedimentary layer could only turn to rock after being deeply buried. While still at the surface a layer of sediments would provide a suitable landscape for life. I wasn't providing an explanation that required an answer. You were accusing us of believing something absurd that we obviously don't believe, and since it isn't supported by the evidence of course we wouldn't believe it. I was just explaining what we do actually believe and the evidence behind it. And that explanation has been provided to you a gazillion times. What is your problem? Get it right. If you think life living on a slab of rock is an inevitable consequence of something we've said then that's something you've got to explain. You're misinterpreting what I said again. I was explaining the evidence behind why we do not believe there was ever a thousand-mile wide beach (meaning extending a thousand miles inland). If you think a thousand-mile wide beach is an inevitable consequence of something we've said then that's something you've got to explain.--Percy