Summations Only

I just added an AbE to Message 2451.It takes me a little while to gather the data and put facts and thoughts in order before I post. That you rip through them so fast tells me you're giving them little thought or consideration, as your brief two sentence uncomprehending reply indicates.But I won't reply now. I haven't read forward this far in the thread yet, but I did notice this reply when I posted the AbE. I'll post a reply to it when I've read forward this far.--Percy

Simply crushing a lumpy field with things growing on it is not going to produce anything like the rock surfaces found in the geo column.I'm sorry I give such short shrift to your posts since you put so much time in on them, and I know I do, but I think so much of what you say really isn't worth thinking about. Sorry.

Actually I'm going to agree with Edge that your views of world geology are based on a schematic diagram of the Grand Staircase region of the American southwest. Not even you agree with this. That there were time periods is undeniable. What is your rationale for concluding there was never a Jurassic period? Seems kind of impossible to make this argument, and you shouldn't want to anyway. After all, the rocks had to have formed during some period of time, whether you believe that was a couple hundred million years ago or 4500 years ago. This is just a bald declaration and makes no sense anyway. The geologic column is conceptual, and there's nothing in it to rationalize away time periods like the Jurassic.The views you have would not exist without Genesis, since no real world evidence exists for your views. You keep claiming the strata cry out flood to you, but it's actually only Genesis that cries out flood. Floods could not have deposited most of the strata we see around the world. The makeup of most strata reflects slow deposition of tiny particles over long time periods.--Percy

Well, if there is one skill you do possess, not thinking would be it.

We've shown you many images of very flat landscapes. If buried any remaining small irregularities would be crushed flat by the weight of overlying sediments. If buried deeply enough the unconsolidated sediments would lithify into a flat stratum. Whatever do you imagine that could prevent this process?But there is no requirement that stratum be flat. This is a nonconformity in the Wind River gorge of Wyoming, the red line showing the boundary: Edge's diagram in his Message 2370 also makes the point that strata can be flat or not. Flat is not a requirement.--Percy

Where on earth did you get the idea that crushing is the only force applied to sedimentary layers as they are formed, and during the time it takes to add the layers comprising the arrangement we see today? In order for there to be a demarcation between layers, there was necessarily activity or physical disturbance at that surface.

So many, many people doubt your fallible interpretation of what you believe is God's word. Including most Christians (no, you don't get to decide who is a "real" Christian and who isn't)>

Oh, what a shocker, Faith ignores evidence again. Here's a larger higher resolution version in color. The region is Michigan: Note that strata can be flat or irregular, and that when deeply buried strata lithify and turn to rock. You're being absurd. If you pile enough material on something, say a mile deep so that it is subjected to nearly a million pounds per square foot, how would you prevent lithification? Why in your flood scenario does piling sediments a mile deep cause lithification, but in a geological scenario it's impossible to cause lithification by piling sediments a mile deep? Inconsistent much?--Percy

Growing more enamored of your own idea can only be due to a process taking place within yourself. It certainly is not because of a growing consensus brought about by the introduction of increasingly convincing evidence. Edge described the problems with this specific idea, and just so we don't forget I'll remind you that your idea requires cubic miles and miles of strata to simply evaporate into thin air.Also, if you glance at the Grand Staircase diagram you notice the faults that border the Grand Canyon Supergroup layers. They don't extend up into the Tapeats and beyond, another sure indication that the Tapeats wasn't there when they tilted: --Percy

Isn't it more than that? She begins with the rains being so forceful that they denude the landscape of all sediments and wash them into the sea. Wouldn't this mark a significant unconformity? But doesn't just noting the time element ignore the impossibility of a sorting process that can interleave limestone and sandstone? Specifically: How could the Bright Angel and the Muav be deposited before the Coconino? I don't think Faith is going to get this one, so I'd like to take a stab at explaining it differently. I'll stick to a very simple and specific scenario instead of being general. I'll only include three depositional environments: sand, silt/mud/clay, and calcareous ooze.With Walther's Law the sand depositional environment (coastline) is adjacent to the silt/mud/clay depositional environment (offshore) is adjacent to the calcareous ooze depositional environment (way offshore in warm shallow seas). This is important to understand. The depositional environments are adjacent to each other, one at the coastline (sand), another adjacent to it offshore (silt/mud/clay), and another adjacent to that one much further offshore (calcareous ooze).As the sea transgresses onto or regresses from a landscape the depositional environments migrate, and it is this migration of depositional environments that causes the layers to overlay one other. With a transgression there will be sandstone at the bottom, shale above it, and limestone above that. With a regression it is the opposite order, with limestone at the bottom, shale above it, and sandstone above that.The reason Faith's flood scenario cannot be interpreted in a Walther's Law framework is because there are no adjacent depositional environments. First the flood deposits the Tapeats, and while it is doing that it is not depositing any Bright Angel Shale in an adjacent area. Then the flood deposits the Bright Angel Shale atop the Tapeats, and while it is doing that it is not depositing any Muav in an adjacent area.What Faith's flood scenario posits is, as you said, that first the Tapeats is completely deposited, then the Bright Angle, then the Muav, and so forth. That's not Walther's Law.But it's worse than that. Faith's flood does not deposit a layer like the Tapeats in one fell swoop. Rather it deposits it it in a series of waves, each wave bringing an unspecified depth of Tapeats sand with it. Each successive deposit of sand should represent a detectable bedding plane.And these waves do not encroach inland for the entire lateral extent of the Tapeats. The waves only reach a bit of the way into the continent. So after depositing this bit of lateral extent of the Tapeats the flood must next deposit a bit of lateral extent of the Bright Angel, and then of the Muav, and so forth up the stratigraphic column all the way to the Claron and the layers above that we can't know about since they've been eroded away everywhere.And it gets even worse. Once this bit of lateral extent of all these layers from the Tapeats all the way up to the Claron and above have been deposited, then the next bit of lateral extent further into the continent must be deposited. The ocean is now lapping at the far edge of this newly deposited column of sediments, and the first wave of Tapeats sand rolls forward onto the landscape. But the landscape isn't there. The column of sediments just deposited are a couple miles above the landscape beyond, and so instead of a wave the water pours down the side of the column of strata like a waterfall.Faith's problem isn't just with Walther's Law. More accurately her scenario doesn't actually have a problem with Walther's Law. It's just a buzzword she picked up that she thinks she understands but doesn't. Faith's problem is with practically everything in reality. She's built a stack of fantasies that would tax God himself.--Percy

What you really mean is that you can't make anything up that would violate your interpretation of the first 9 chapters of Genesis. You have no problem making things up that violate reality. Actually, you seem to be doing your best to violate as many physical laws as possible. It is the geologists and their amateur helpers who are trying to keep you informed of how your violating reality, but you don't want to hear it.--Percy

Geology is a very active field where knowledge increases daily, but whether there was a worldwide flood 4500 years ago is an issue long settled. There's no evidence for it and a great deal of evidence for other mechanisms being responsible for the planet's geology. A more accurate name would be the reality and evidence based paradigm. You're on a fool's errand. More accurately, you ignore and/or misunderstand and/or misinterpret the geological evidence, and you've provided no evidence supporting your views. All you have is a determination to stick to your guns and keep repeating your fantasies without end. Following the Bible is your philosophy, not following the evidence.--Percy

There is no evidence in the geologic record for a massive outbreak of volcanos and earthquakes 4500 years ago. Volcanos eject a great deal of ash into the atmosphere that can travel for thousands of miles and be recorded in sediments such as in lake beds. There's nothing there.I don't think anyone understands why you're trying to build a house-of-cards fantasy that has no basis in the Bible (beyond a meager number of things, such as that the Flood happened over the course of about a year, it covered the highest mountains, etc.) or reality. You should follow these steps:

1. Read the flood story of Genesis and form a hypothesis for one of the details of what might have actually happened.
2. Seek scientific evidence to support the hypothesis.
3. If the evidence exists then add the hypothesis to your list of confirmed hypotheses. Form a hypothesis regarding another detail and return to step 2.
4. If no evidence is found then add the hypothesis to your list of unconfirmed hypotheses. Form a hypothesis regarding another detail and return to step 2.
5. If disconfirming evidence is found then discard the hypothesis and form a new one, then return to step 2.

The problem is that every time you find yourself in step 5 instead of discarding the hypothesis you just dig in.
Eventually you get what you have now, a flood scenario full of disproved hypotheses.--Percy

You know how you said that 18th and 19th century creationists got things all screwed up regarding keeping their Flood ideas consistent with the Bible? Well, there are a lot of 21st century creationists still screwing things up. Concerning volcanos being the fountains of the deep, with no confirmatory evidence you have no way to muster a defense of the idea, so there's no point mentioning it here. Because volcanic basalts and ash are very easy to date it would be a very simple matter to establish that many, many undersea volcanos erupted around the same time 4500 years ago. Wikipedia says there are around a million undersea volcanos. If creationists sincerely believe in this idea they should begin checking it out. Imagine the scientific uproar it would cause if after dating 10 undersea volcanoes 8 of them had a date of last eruption of 4500 years ago. It would be the first undeniable evidence of the Flood. One of those megachurches could probably fund the effort with no problem - are any of them creationist? Or some creationist group could put together a crowdfunding effort.--Percy

Well, doesn't seem likely. Total ocean volume is 1.3 billion cubic kilometers, total land volume above sea level is 150 million cubic kilometers. If all land above sea level were swept into the sea it would only represent about 10% of the ocean's volume. I doubt if sea life would take much notice.But I'm surprised you haven't considered the salinity problem. If all the water added to the oceans by the rain and the fountains of the deep were fresh, then the ocean's volume would expand from 1.3 billion to 5.5 cubic kilometers (to cover Mount Everest). Ocean salinity would drop by 75%. Some ocean life could tolerate this, some could not.You also haven't accounted for the effect on freshwater fish, which are very intolerant of ocean level salinity. The denuding of the landscape would destroy most lakes and wash the fish away into the ocean where they would die. What evidence do you have for how freshwater fish survived the flood? If we assume that they somehow survived, perhaps because of reduced ocean salinity, what evidence do you have for how freshwater fish repopulated the new lakes that formed after the flood waters receded, since sweeping them into the ocean would seem to randomize their distribution, and they would have had no means of returning to the lakes?And since no lake could be older than 4500 years, what evidence do you have that explains why many lakes have more than 4500 years of layers on their bottoms.Also (and I've asked this before), what evidence do you have for how ocean salinity was restored after the flood? Now that I've shown suffocation is an unlikely factor, how does your answer change? Why do you say there was a "prodigious" amount of fossilized marine life. Some strata have many fossils, some have few fossils, some trace fossils, and some no fossils at all. Here's an image from the Kaibab with lots of fossils: But the entire Kaibab does not look like this. I've hiked past the Kaibab, I know. Finding fossils isn't easy.--Percy