Summations Only

Put the dating in the evolution column for now. There are ways to answer some of it but not now.The exact mechanism may not be clear but it is SO obvious that bazillions of fossils fit the purpose of the Flood to perfection, and that explaining them on the Old Earth scheme takes a Rube Goldbergish system because fossilization needs particular conditions to occur, which of course would have been provided by the Flood; and the strata which are made up of DIFFERENT KINDS of sediments often strikingly sharply segregated from one another is something water does, and their flatness too. And there is no way for whole life scenarios of plants and animals to have occupied the space of each sedimentary layer for millions of years as the standard scenario requires. Turns into rock and another totally different living scenario presents itself? Really, the whole thing is so preposterous that if any of you could put aside your evo convictions and give it some truly serious thought you'd have to see how preposterous it is. It could not possibly have happened as the standard theory requires.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We're not talking rock, we're talking dissolvable sediments, and there were no high mountains before the Flood anyway. Concentrate on what actually happens: Torrential rain over a few days in a local area saturates the land and carries it in streams and mudflows, often swamping houses and cars in its path. It is absurd how you all want to trivialize what worldwide rain wouid do to the land. You just aren't thinking.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK. Now do you have an explanation for how the buried landscape that becomes a rock becomes a very flat slab of rock that in many examples in the stratigraphic column are quite horizontal and of a fairly uniform thickness? That is, I would expect a deeply buried landscape that turned to rock to be quite lumpy and irregular, about as far as you could get from a flat slab. I have to wonder how it could acquire flat surfaces top and bottom. Surely all the buried material is turning to rock above and below it as well, so how does this one particular landscape become so identifiable as we see the sediments of the stratigraphic column are. Those strata are often of very particular sediment too, say all sandstone like the Tapeats for instance. How would such a layer become so clearly differentiated from layers above and below it, which are often of some completely different sedimentary rock, say limestone, separated by what is often a very straight flat surface between them. Burial might harden sediment into rock I suppose, but not with the peculiar shape and composition of those in the stratigraphic column. A very irregular surface such as we see at the surface today I would assume, and composed of a mixture of sediments, nothing that would ever become a rock of the form found in the stratigraphic column.. But not normally from one kind of sediment to another completely different sediment, with little or no mixture, in a form that could harden into a flat rock of the kind seen in the stratigraphic column, one on top of another all quite similar in form. None of which even begins to account for the form of the stratigraphic column. Why would I think about something so utterly irrelevant to the stratigraphic column? Normal earth surface could not possibly ever become a stack of disparate sedimentary rocks, or even one flat sedimentary rock in such a stack, nor would burying it fifty miles deeo change its normal irregularity into a flat rock. It's you who haven't thought through the requirements of the task you seem to think you are describing. Yes it is. But it has absolutely nothing to do with my question. You have to account for how a diferent sedimentary rock got laid on top of that deeply buried one but at the moment you've got a deep accumulation of who knows what between them, the lower parts of which must also have turned to rock on top of your original buried landscape, of a dfferent sediment or mix of sediments I would suppose and yet your buried rock has to be straight and flat and look like one of those in the stratigraphic column. And all that material has to erode away down to the straight flat surface of that buried rock in order for the next sedimentary rock to sit on top of it with nothing in between. You really are not thinking at all. The question about the animals had to do with the fact that they couldn't live ON a bare rock and that would have to occur at some time in this process you are describing, it's a phase that can't be escaped and in that phase you can't account for the animal life. You really are not thinking at.all. No fair hearing at all as I said . Amazing. This level of mental incompetence is scary. The scariness is compounded further by the Cheer given it by Tanypteryx and the uncritical response by jar. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again you absolutely failed to address the actual physical situation I'm talking about, denying essential features and missing the whole point. Never mind, I'm done here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks for thinking it through. I won't be able to respond much until some later time, but for now I'd just say I start from the appearance of the stratigraphic column as it presents itself, say, in the walls of the Grand Canyon. The separate strata are of different sediments but they are remarkably uniform in being one flat slab of sedimentary rock on top of another clearly divided from each other. The basic form is pretty much identical. And I'm trying to imagine how that could possibly have been the result of the geological explanations that involve time periods of millions of years as we see them identified with particular rocks or groups of rocks in many diagrams, time periods that are often illustrated as landscapes with various kinds of animals in them. Yes, that's the land animals, the lower rocks contain marine life, but all of them despite those differences look remarkably the same: a stack of flat sedimentary rocks. So I'm trying to figure out how the usual explanation could possibly work and I don't see how it could no matter how the information is juggled.You are assuming a single sediment it seems, and a flatness. Where does that come from if we're talking about the surface of the earth in a given time period?PaulK started from a landscape that gets deeply buried. How does that landscape possibly become a flat sedimentary rock? Burying it isn't going to make it all one sediment but most of the rocks in the column are identifiable single sediments, not all but most. How could any landscape be composed of a single sediment, or for that matter of any identifiable collection of sediments? That is not what the surface of the earth looks like now. And how could burying it flatten it to the flatness of those stacked in the stratigraphic column? Some of the strata extend for thousands of square miles, all flat as a pancake. And in the scenario PaulK describes, what is it buried under? More areas of single sediment, or something more like the surface of the earth now, which is more likely to be a mixture of sediments and soils and so on. It's all quite impossible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Whatever you've showed me doesn't suffice to answer my questions.I guess we could start another thread.

Please remember the context: drawings of landscapes with animals in them that look like today's earth surface, not a mudflat or a single-sediment situation, just normal earth surface..And all the strata are flat without exception. Some gently grade to different thickness but they are still flat.There is no point in continuing this discussion with you because you refuse to understand what I'm talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Monadnocks do not change the basic flatness. There's just no point in talking to someone who brings up objections like that.Look, I don't accept much of anything Geology says about the strata, what I'm doing is trying to show how it's all wrong. I'm starting with how the stack of strata that make up the stratigraphic column appears, their flatness and straightness and uniformity of basic form, and going from there. I do not accept any "ancient seabed" interpretations or "shallow seas" or any of that. And I'm working from LAND scenarios as depicted in the typical illustrations of what supposedly lived in a particular time period associated with a particular rock or set of rocks, and thinking about the physical problems involved in getting from one slab of rock to the next assuming such a scenario. I'm sorry you seem to be unable to think about it except in the standard terms. That makes conversation with you impossible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dear Dear Coragyps, there are things Geology may have overlooked, and besides, I'm answering what I've learned, not refusing to learn it. Nobody has addressed my points. But I have no hope that anyone at EvC ever will. You aren't even trying, why is that?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really, Paul, that's just more evidence you don't have a clue to what I'm talking about, simple though it is. Altitude has nothing to do with it.

That's a very interesting diagram, since it's exactly what I sketched out for what the Grand Canyon layers SHOULD look like, long long ago. That is they should LOOK eroded, which they don't.In any case I'm talking about the original flatness of course.

I'm talking about the original form of the layer for pete's sake. I did think that should be obvious. It's got nothing to do with anything that happened to the layers after they were laid down.

Sigh.
How did the sea floor get into the stratigraphic column?
And is all that 70% of the earth's surface that it covers flat like that?
And that isn't as flat as the layers in the column anyway.
And if you bored into the floor would you find layers of disparate sediments beneath it? I doubt it.

Prove it. For a change stop making wild assertions and prove something you are asserting.

"Altitude is related to relief?" But what does relief have to do with this discussion?Nobody is discussing what I'm discussing, this whole thing is ridiculous. I don't know or care whose fault it is but we're all talking at cross purposes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.