Growing the Geologic Column

So, you assume that there was a fludde? And yet you have the nerve to complain that we make assumptions?

But my assumptions aren't my own or human-originated assumptions I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood because I know the Bible is nothing but truth. That doesn't mean I can say I *know* exactly how it happened, though. All that is just the speculative part, the part I try to figure out at EvC, though I think some of the speculations are pretty solid. And for the most part it's fun too, except when geologists and others get all mad and snarky about it because some of what they think contradicts God.But your assumptions are all human-originated, and to the extent they are about the prehistoric past they're all speculations too, mostly untestable hypotheses, without any divine revelation to tell you youre even on the right track. Which, of course, you're not unfortunately, about the Old Earth part of Geology. Again, no problem with the Observational Science which is the practical part of geologic work.

No, I don't need the Precambrian, I can make my point just about the span from the Cambrian to the Tertiary, which I've done at times, or I can even fall back on the Creationist position that says the Flood started at the Tapeats, though I really don't like that position. But I do expect eventually to come to some conclusion or other about that complicated mess beneath the GC, I haven't forgotten about it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Seems to me I've said it awfully frequently that both sides can only interpret when it comes to the prehistoric past. An example of your interpretation is that the Cardenas exhibits erosional surfaces. That's evidence but only of an interpretive sort since you don't know if there might be another way that happened. Your interpretation is pretty good I'm sure, but it is only an interpretation. And I suggested one of my own when I mentioned above that the formation was tilted as a block, which could shift and abrade unsolidified sediments. But interpretations wouldn't necessarily be clearly wrong, what one would have to do is look for other interpretations, that's all. And that's what I do try to do. Like on that other thread I may eventually get started, I expect you to identify angular unconformities in some of the cross sections and of course explain them by the conventional theory of how they formed, and I'll have to try to reinterpret them as occurring at the same time as the other disturbances in the picture, by the same causes. This sort of thing isn't really provable, it's just a war of plausibilities and I hope I can some up with some good ones. But you'll still like your conventional explanation of angular unconformities the best anyway, that's predictable. Evidence for MY interpretation?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course you don't need it. It refutes your position that everything happened after all sedimentary depositon was over... QED...

But I don't need to prove that EVERYTHING occurred after all the strata were laid down, though that's what I believe and would like to be able to prove, I can just as well make the case for that long span between the Tapeats/Cambrian and the Claron/Tertiary. That's a very good case on its own, just not the perfect case I'd really like to make. And for most of the time I've argued this case that IS what I've focused on. It DOES make a good case without the Precambrian. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But only one side can produce evidence. Well, the evidence is that it looks like erosional surfaces that we see today. But that isn't all, really...We see pieces of the underlying rock in the Cardenas and we also see a baked lower contact and weathering effects. If you have a better interpretations, I'm all ears. And what have you got? Except that we don't see evidence of shearing...Or maybe you have some? I'd love to see it.

If your interpretation is correct I'll eventually come to see that it's correct, but in the meantime I have to sift through all the information myself looking for alternative views. Sorry, I know you think I should just take your word for it but I have to see it for myself. Everybody here tries to railroad me into accepting what they present as the scientific view of something or other, when I'm just beginning to get a picture of the situation. Then it turns out that some of the stuff they say is wackier than they think my ideas are. You aren't going to be wrong in those ways I'm sure, but I still have no problem thinking a geologist could be wrong because I KNOW you're wrong about the fact that there was a worldwide Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You get them from non-humans? Still an interpretation. How do you know that 'global' was not just the 'known world'...I'd say your idea is highly interpretive. I haven't seen that part yet. Maybe what you are thinking actually contradicts God. After all, it is just an interpretation of the Bible.

You are not in a position to tell me what contradicts God. Don't go there.

So are yours. Why do I need divine revelation? Isn't that a potential source of interpretive error? I would be glad to see your interpretation of radiometric ages and the contact relationships at the Great Unconformity...

Why not? What if I told you that I actually had a conversation with God the other day?

No. You will not. It is impossible for facts to overcome a belief system that is based on religious myth. Thank you for making my point. Religious belief always trumps actual knowledge. It also ignores evidence.And no one is trying railroad you. All they want you (or someone else reading this thread) to do is think twice before making foolish statements. We know it will not stop you, but that would be a start. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I'd know you were lying or deluded.

As I keep trying to get across to you, the speculations about HOW the Flood happened are not given by divine revelation so yes I can come to see that a particular interpretation isn't going to work, though you can bet I'm going to give it a long run first. What is NOT in doubt is that there WAS such an event, whether we know how it played out or not. And too much of your geology contradicts that one simple revelation.