Summations Only

Conceptual means doesn't exist in reality, but it DOES exist in reality, just not all in one place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No you did not. You asserted it. You have been shown disturbances between layers and you ignore them and call them illusionary. Far cry from "proving" your premise. Oopps... forgot the SuperGroup for which you argued extensively to be a flood deposit. Or is the SuperGroup not part of the Geological Column now? And there was a major tectonic event and erosion before the Tapeats was deposited?

I'VE EXPLAINED< NOt IGNORED THE VERY FEW DISTURBANCES BETWEEN THE LAYERS IN THE GRAND CANYON. AND I DID NOT EXAGGERATE, IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BACK IN THE THREAD THAT MOST OF THE CONTACTS ARE TIGHT AND SHOW NO EROSION. IN ANY CASE THE DEGREE OF EROSION THAT DOES EXIST IS TEENY WEENY COMPARED TO WHAT WOULD BE EXPECTED OF MILLIONS OF YEARS AT THE SURFACE.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well that certainly clears things up.Who are "some", and why do they think a description of fountains or springs in the context of a flood would imply anything about lava?What is this "sea floor collapsed" event you're talking about? When did that happen? How do you know?If the water was pulling a vacuum as it left, what was making it leave? Mind of its own? Just being cantankerous? Flunked physics 101?"I don't have any idea"
No shit. Tides?
"...all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." - Gen. 7:11And you envision the tides being a player here? In a cataclysm that only had 40 days to cover "the high mountains of the earth" plus 15 cubits? Do you have any idea how much volume just that extra 15 cubits alone represent. The rate of water deposition required to add all this volume in 40 days make your scenario of tide and waves lapping at the heels of scampering animals ludicrous. And let's not even start considering the surf that would blow up across a world sized ocean. So, never been to the beach either I gather. Missed that whole "waves washing away your footprints in the sands of time" meme? Oops. You're not even trying anymore, are you.

The mind rot in this place is staggering.

No you haven't... maybe in your own mind, but I am not convinced. Well, yea. That's obviously the case right? It has to be that those who disagree with you are "in thrall to the lies." That's your "proof"?

Oooo... more "proof" of your arguments. Good show.

Why?

Wait... so now you accept the time element of the geological column (obviously the time periods would represent days or hours and not millions of years, but hey...)? Because if the column represents deposits that don't exist in all locals, then the column links them temporally. But you have rejected that idea in the past. Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

But there IS erosion between the layers? Based on what data? How do you know how much erosion there SHOULD be? Should there be Grand Canyons everywhere?And stop typing in all caps. It is totally unnecessary.HBD

Yea, but what do geologists know? They're delusional.

Geologists are very good at descriptive physical geology, delusional in their acceptance of the Old Earth interpretive scheme. Fortunately it doesn't really have a lot to do with their actual work, it's just window dressing to obscure the reality.Why don't you stick around more Dragon Boy? We could have dispensed with all this stupid stuff by now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know how much erosion there SHOULD be by noting how much there is on the surface now. A LOT more than is seen anywhere between layers of the Gological Column. LOTS AND LOTS more. I like all caps when I'm reacting to idiocies, they are very satisfying, and all the more so if they annoy you.

I can't even figure out what you are grossly misinterpreting in order to try to answer it.

Interesting...Did you know that not all areas erode at the same rates? And that different areas are effected by erosion differently?Like... and... and the erosion that resulted from a Tsunami... and the marsh sands that Capt Stormfield posted... All of these images are areas of net erosion. The marshy areas from Capt Stormfield's image might be considered an area of sedimentation, but the sands are erosional - you can tell because of the ripple marks (ooo, we have seen those in between layers too!).Is that the kind of erosion you were expecting between the layers? cause that doesn't seem too unreasonable. Ok, if it makes you feel better. It just makes you look like a jerk, and I didn't think that was what you were going for. This is just a discussion, I am in control of my emotions. If you are trying to get me riled up in order to deflect the discussion away from the issues, then you are going to step up your game a bit. Otherwise, typing in all caps is a negative reflection on you, not me.HBD