Summations Only

Maybe I have low standards, or maybe I'm just up against a hidebound bunch of anti-dreationists.

Yes I did.

Yes I noticed that and that does usually happen, but in this case I'd guess the amount of salt wasn't great enough AND the channels filled up with soft sediments that had already been deposited. lOr for sediments already deposited but still soft to fill up the channel?fEdited by Faith, : qs

Disagree on both counts.

Or for the stubborn willful blindness of fallen humanity.

Nor did ringo have anything to say to support the remark I disagreed with.

Funny, I think you are wrong on both counts, and that the status quo interpretation has no real evidence and is definitely all in your heads.Keep up the silly one liners, ringo, I can answer you one for one.

I'm the only one here with the correct understanding of the Bible, but that of course means that everybody else with the weird views claims I'm the wrong one.I just need to take my evidence to people who know what evidence is.

If you don't think my latest description suffices there's no point in digging up the other post where I discussed it.

I see no need to answer that pack of lies.

it normally would cause them to sag so some other explanation is needed in this case. I say it's probably the small amount of salt and the hardness of the layers above, and the fact that softer sediment did immediately fill the channels. The really saggy places I've seen were obviously just deposited by the Flood, and there was lots of salt and the entire stratigraphic column sagged as a unit.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't say any more in the previous post than in the latest post.

Well, as you know, my job is to fit it into the Flood. Let me know if any ideas occur.

All that is evo fairy tale/interpretation, like "Tapeats beach" and other such imaginary landscapes that always make my eyes roll so hard they want to jump out of my skull. Facts such as where it was found in this real world, circumstances of its finding, by whom, when, what else was found nearby and so on, would be far more useful. You know, FACTS, real observable things, FACTS, not interpretations and wild imaginations.Oh and information about how fast crinoids grow would be helpful. I've googled it but not found the answer. Others here do much better at that sort of research than I do. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Evo/Geo Fairy Tale Landscape. Reminds me of "Puff the Magic Dragon lived by the sea ... But they weren't all THAT soft. The rocks got formed fast beneath all that weight of three miles of sedimentary layers and the heat of the friction and the volcano. Geology always imputes way too much time to just about any kind of geological event. If the movement at the GU broke off chunks as I'm supposing happened because of the dampness of the rocks (though pretty hard from compaction), then I'd also suppose some of the chunks got rolled into pebble shapes, you know, the way you can roll damp clay into balls between your hands. Yes I know you say faults can't do that, I'm not even to go there, but since you believe in all kinds of evo fairy tales about imaginary landscapes and seascapes in the unknowable distant past, I can't take your views about what happened in the distant past very seriously. Maybe most faults don't produce pebbles and cobbles, but this movement occurred during the Flood, a whole nother set of circumstances. Not your usual fault.All you've got is imaginary landscapes, at least mine has an independent witness from the time itself to a great event even if it doesn't spell out all the particulars. It spells out enough to contradict the whole Old Earth fairy tale and suggest a very different explanation for the observed phenomena. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.