Geology- working up from basic principles.

Could we use some of this material on the SkepticWiki? We are unfortunately rather short of geologists.We should of course credit "The Matt, EvC Forums", unless you would prefer your real name to appear, or unless you would like to register and submit articles there yourself.Cheers.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If, as you say, it is "obvious", then what but hysterical denial of the facts would prevent us from applying it to rocks?

What if there are no magic cats shuffling the geological record?I invite you to consider this possibilty because there aren't any magic cats shuffling the geological record.Oh, and you might want to look up the meaning of the word "religion". A disbelief in magic rock-shuffling cats, in the absence of evidence for such cats, is not actually a "religion".

And yet you wrote:

No-one said that a "flood" type catalyst must be involved with layering, did they?That's something you made up in your head, isn't it?

Okay.---Vashgun, on the (generous) assumption that by "flood-type catalyst" you means "water that is not part of a flood in any way, least of alll an impossible magical one", then you still have to learn that there are other ways of getting layers of rock than deposition by non-flood waters. Hopefully these will be covered later in the course.

Well, it's a consequence of propositions such as "gravity is down", and "sediment comes from above", and "solid things don't pass through each other".Try applying these insights to the histories of these bottles: Of course, you will have to apply some "uniformitarian assumptions", such as that the laws of nature weren't violated during the formation of the layers.Geology's really quite easy when you get the hang of it. Yet to be mentioned in this thread, young Padawan.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, it doesn't. It is an obvious consequence of Steno's laws.You might remind your creationist friend that every geologist knows Steno's laws and Walther's laws, and what rocks look like, unlike creationist blowhards, and that they would be the first people who would notice if there was any inconsistency.

That's one of my favorite words.We now return you to the topic ...

What it does not, apparently, provide, is a mechanism whereby thing on the bottom can settle after the things on the top.It sounds to me as though you're talking about turbidite formation or something very similar. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that this contradicts superposition. I believe that observation of actual geological processes has a lot to do with it.

Apparently. But it is not possible to have the stuff on the bottom deposited after the stuff on the top.

I can identify many major features that you have in common with an elephant. But I can easily dismiss the proposition that you are one. This is because in deciding whether or not you were an elephant, I should pay attention to the differences as well as to the similarities. We can consider it. And if the only argument in favor is: "well, one day people might find a reason to think these strata were deposited by water", then it is outweighed by the numerous arguments against. I am willing to stipulate that one day conceivably people might find fairies at the bottom of my garden, but until they do I feel happy saying that there aren't any. As it stands, I'm not even inclined to concede that it's reasoning.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.