Objections to Evo Time Frame Deposition of Strata #2

Simple topic: Sticking to the Grand Canyon at least for starters, because it is easy to visualize, it appears obvious to me that the individual strata are not eroded as roxrcool and others claim they are, as erosion over the millions of years designated for each of the layers would obliterate them, not leave them as neatly parallel/horizontal as they are. I'm sure some erosion can be demonstrated, but nothing like what should be expected from the millions of years assumed.And no, when I say neatly I don't mean some kind of perfection. They LOOK parallel/horizontal to the naked eye.This should be a pretty limited topic, sticking to the specifics of the creation of a single layer of the Geo Column for the most part as suggested by Admin, but including how a given layer started from sediment and built up from the bottom to become rock and stayed relatively flat and horizontal over millions of years, which I claim is impossible.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-16-2005 10:32 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-16-2005 10:32 AM

At http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata -->http://EvC Forum: Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata I said: I stand by the above quoted opinion. You need to come up with a message 1 with substance. You can post it as a new message in this topic. You might (hint hint) also like to edit the topic title to something more specific to your position. You need to edit message 1 to edit the topic title.And yes, I now know the "his" should be "her".Adminnemooseus

---

Am still thinking about the posts on the other thread. I don't think I'm up to your recommendation at the moment. Maybe later.

A new thread has been proposed, which may help; but it is not a copy of all the prior posts.Added in edit: I have held of promoting the other thread also, until it better fits requests made by moderators at the close of the old thread.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 03-16-2005 05:15 AM

Sorry, I posted my new suggestion in the place of the first one, misunderstanding the instruction to post it as a new message.

Changes in the intended opening message can be done in two ways:1) By editing the message 1 of the proposed topic (as you have done).or2) By submitting a new message in the same proposed topic.Either way, the individual message can be used as the new message 1 of the promoted version of the topic. Method 2 has the advantage that it preserves message 1 in its original form, and thus the nature of the changes can be easily tracked. Even a third or more message can be written, as to be the proposed message 1 of the new topic.Also, by using method 2, the topic is automaticly given a "bump" on the topic list, bringing the changes to the attention of the various admins. If method 1 is used, the changes may well not be noticed by the admins.I am currently giving my careful consideration to the present form of message 1. While we could nit-pick on it for a long time, I am inclined to think it is now "good enough". But I don't want to rush my decision.I may take the liberty of doing a few tweeks of message 1 myself. If so, I will try to remember to save an untweeked version as a new message in this topic.Stand by - The topic will probably be promoted within the next hour, quite possibly early in the next hour.Adminnemooseus

Message 1 has been promoted to be message 1 of new topic Deposition and Erosion of Sediments.The topic title change is the only change I made to message 1.Adminnemooseus