Summations Only

Yes, that would be ever so nice, please explain it. How is that an explanation? Nope, still no explanation. Nope, still no explanation, just more name calling. Of course, it's understandable that you prefer name calling, since every time you venture into the realm of fact you just make error after error, as you do here.Let me explain your error, though it's something that's been explained to you many, many times. Past time periods did not consist of flora and fauna living on huge flat sedimentary rocks. They lived in prairies, forests, mountains, deserts, coastal plains, swamps, lagoons, rivers, lakes and seas. And undoubtedly some did live on exposed flat sedimentary rocks. Generally only regions of net sedimentation become buried, so we don't usually find upland regions represented in the sedimentary layers, but rather coastal regions and lakes and seas.Any life that becomes buried could become fossilized, but its important to understand that burial of an entire creature is very rare. Usually decay and disarticulation of the skeleton occurs, and then transport of the skeletal remains could occur (wind, streams, rivers, ocean currents, etc.), and then some pieces of skeletal remains might become buried, preserved and eventually fossilized.Only after deep burial do sedimentary layers become lithified.Will this finally sink in now, that geology and paleontology do not believe that prior life lived on huge flat sedimentary rocks, that it lived on landscapes much like our own? The way I just did for your ludicrous assertion. I just began typing and explained it. It isn't that hard.You're just making excuse after excuse for not being able to explain anything. First it was paradigms, then illusions, then mental cobwebs, then mere mental exercise, then semantic confusion, now it's ludicrous. Enough with the name calling already.If your views make sense and have evidence then you should have little trouble explaining them. Is this to be the nature of your contributions from now on, castigation of your fellow participants? If you're truly flummoxed at how to make your case, if you have nothing more to say about the topic, then I'd say it's time to move on.--Percy

There may be other factors, but that is the most obvious reason for the basin. If you notice other irregularities in the Paradox Shelf carbonates, those helped for form restrictive basins where evaporation could occur, i.e., they were cut off from general circulation of sea water.

Correction: They are nothing like YOUR strata. They are very like what most people accept as strata, local deposits with a lot of lateral variation.

You've got that right! I've had to alter the meaning of 'strata' in a desperate attempt to communicate with you. It didn't work.

You keep complaining that I misuse the term "strata," at least very recently you do, though over the last decade I don't recall your making an issue of it. But you never explain, just complain. The word "strata" means "layers." What IS your problem?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm pleased to think you actually try to communicate with me. It would never have occurred to me if you hadn't said so. In that case perhaps you could explain what's wrong with my use of the word "strata."

What word would you like me to use for the Geological Column layers?

Percy, JonF, Capn Stormy, edgy, the paradigm problem is beyond solution at EvC. I don't know why I'm posting now even. Habit I guess.

Strata Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

First, your requirement that 'strata' must be of a continental scale, flat with sharp contacts.Second, that strata must overly strata. This is not important, but shows your tendency to create new definitions.

Weird, but thanks for offering some explanation at least. Please don't exaggerate. I never said "must" or made it a "requirement"-- it is an observation based on pictures people have posted or linked to, that SOME of the strata of the Geological Column cover that much territory, some even being found on other continents as well; and most at least cover the area of a few states, and even if they have different names in different locations they are still all the SAME layer. AND they were clearly horizontally laid down flat and straight, and only later disturbed, truncated, twisted or whatever, and where they remain intact you can see the tight contacts between the layers. SEE them. Again this is an OBSERVATION that the strata of the Geological Column do happen to be a STACK OF LAYERS one on top of another wherever it is found, and why anyone would dispute that is beyond me. Oh well, no, you need the Geo Column to continue so you invent new locations for it, that's the reason. What's really happened is that the Geological Column in every possible way is evidence for the Flood, it came to an end when the Flood came to an end, and since you can't allow that to be true YOU are the one creating new definitions and insisting it's continuing elsewhere. It's a total deceit.Look I AM going to go argue this to people who can think straight, God willing, since nobody at EvC can. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There actually is no such thing. There is a stratigraphic column for the Grand Canyon, but even then the east is different from the west side.I'd suggest looking at a glossary of geological terms.

Nonsense. You have said several times that local formations, including the Temple Butte Limestone, are not strata.

My reason for doing so is to show that you really don't know the subject all that well. Wrong again.I have said that there is a different stratigraphic column at each location. If anyone is changing definitions, it is you. These things have been defined for ages and they are not going to change because you disagree with them. Then you will continue to run into objections unless you want to talk to a bunch of YEC bobbleheads.

Geology has it all wrong about the geological column, sorry. I know that's hard to believe but it's true. Fortunately it doesn't really have a lot to do with your work as a geologist. There is a stack of strata laid down all over the planet that only the Flood could have done; it's not separate local stacks. It proves the Flood in SO many ways. Some day even you will know that, but meanwhile it's pointless to go on arguing about it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.