Summations Only

I've had the experience many times of trying to get a clean slice of something and getting chunks and crumbles instead but coming up with the exact context is eluding me. I'm sure you've had the same sort of experience. But I keep thinking of things that aren't quite the illustration I need, such as pulling chunks of paint or plaster off with the masking tape, or pulling up chunks of the cake when trying to spread a frosting that is too stiff. I nevertheless keep picturing chunks and crumbles being abraded off some surface or other I just can't find the right image for it.

Yes I'm sure modern mainstream geology is also engaged in the job of piecing together a whole out of some parts, but since they are dedicated to the Old Earth paradigm and I'm working from the Flood model neither side is going to be seeing the evidence for the other.

So, where are the 'crumbles' at the GU?

You haven't introduced any evidence nor made any arguments. You've only engaged in name calling and made bald declarations. This basically says to Coyote, "Your view is absurd, it's insufficiently explanatory, it couldn't have been, you're just wrong, your OE interpretations are ludicrous, and I'm right."You haven't actually said anything of substance.Addressing this bit of nonsense: Tell us, while not ignoring what's been told you previously about life on landscapes experiencing slow sedimentation, what prevents a living landscape from being gradually buried and eventually lithified? Didn't your flood produce a living landscape (life running around leaving tracks and digging burrows) before being buried and lithified?If your phrasing implied a belief that only wet sediment can be lithified, this is false since lithification is not a drying process and only requires pressure to force out most water that might have been present (water will not commonly become 100% absent - for example, granite can contain up to maybe a half percent water by weight, depending upon porosity, as much as a half teaspoon in a one pound granite rock - if you've got granite countertops they'll absorb water unless they're sealed).--Percy

There are no volcanoes or earthquakes in the general description of the Flood and its Timeline.

And yet we show you photographs of wetlands, where sediments are being laid down, that are covered with both plant and animal life.Quit. Lying.

Dishonesty. Simple, brainwashed dishonesty. As has been pointed out so many times, the honestly thoughtful religious community moved beyond this subject centuries ago. Coming from an SDA background, I understand that the essential prerequisite to this kind of ignorance is lying to yourself about yourself.

Why is this weird in a Biblical context? The entire flood story is premised on the supernatural intervention of a God. Why on earth would you need to explain it in terms of naturally occurring phenomena? Did your god only have one miracle on the shelf? He got to start it rolling but then ran out of jurisdiction? Or does your still small voice recognize that you need to kick sand over the absurdity of your basic premise?

Well, first of all, Faith suggested that maybe fountains of the deep might be volcanoes, but she also says that the volcanism only occurred after the flood and after all of the sediments had been deposited. So I guess we can throw out that idea.And sure, the general treatment of the flood in the Bible does not give details. However, if all of the volcanism we see in the geological record occurred within just a 4ky time-frame that might merit a sentence or two in the Bible, yes?

Hey, finally someone defending your model - you've won a convert, congratulations! Thank you for digging out this illustration. The illustration is intended to be diagrammatic and not to proportion. Generally in real life the sand deposition area is a narrow region along the coastline. The silt/mud/clay deposition area is a much broader region offshore but paralleling the coast (similar sediments are also deposited in coastal swamps and lagoons, but leave those aside for now). The calcareous deposits that form limestone occur further from shore in warm shallow seas of possibly great extent, conducive to tiny shelled creatures living in the waters and to shelled creatures like coral and mollusk living on the sea floor.Calcium carbonate, the primary component of the shells of these creatures and of limestone, is soluble, but while Moose implies that limestone forms only by precipitation, the fact is that the contribution of precipitation is variable. Some limestone is full of the fossil shells of these creatures that rained down on the sea floor when they died, with precipitation serving as more of a cement. Some is very fine grained without fossils and probably involved a very great degree of precipitation. And a lot is probably somewhere between the extremes.I wasn't able to find much detailed information about limestone deposition rates, but chalk is a type of limestone and the White Cliffs of Dover are chalk. Wikipedia says the deposition rate for the White Cliffs of Dover was about a half millimeter per year (that's 20 inches per thousand years, a very rapid rate), so with a total thickness of 500 meters it would have taken about a million years to deposit the formation.I don't know why Moose said the limestone deposition rate would be very slow compared to other sediment types. My own feeling is that it is probably highly variable depending upon local conditions.You might be interested in this paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Deposition Rates because it mentions that deposition rates of marine limestone are the same as those measured for calcareous ooze:

quote:

---

There is quantitative agreement between the rates of deposition measured in sediments today and the rate of deposition inferred for the corresponding sedimentary rocks; for example the deposition rates calculated for the calcareous material in marine limestone are the same as the deposition rates measured for calcareous ooze; and similar remarks apply to other rocks and their corresponding sediments.

---

Why was the flood killing ocean life? Because of declining salinity because of all the added fresh water? Because of increasing salinity because of all the salt from land sediments washed into the sea (runoff from land is the source of ocean salinity)? Whichever one was the cause, what evidence do you have for how the ocean's original salinity was restored after the flood?And if the ocean became toxic to ocean life during the flood then since presumably Noah didn't take sea life aboard the ark, what evidence do you have for how ocean life was restored after the flood?--Percy

Faith's position is far more absurd than even that. Remember that no matter which of the Biblical flood myths you want to use the whole thing only lasted less than two years. Now if all the volcanoes, the continents splitting, mountain building, reef moving, landscape scouring, Cliffs of Dover moving and general mayhem Faith tries to squeeze into that two year period actually happened it would really lay down a pretty easily recognized marker.And that's what the early geologists thought they would find. But it didn't happen. Fortunately they were basically honest people and so Young Earth, the Biblical Floods simply got put into the fantasy pile where they belonged from the beginning.

You're making stuff up again. Just paging through Dalrymple's book, before radiometric dating there were these estimates of the age of the Earth:

• 1862, Lord Kelvin, cooling rate of the Earth from molten state: 20 to 400 million years
• 1898, George Darwin, tidal effects slowing Earth's rotation: >56 million years
• 1899, John Joly, ocean salinity: 89 million years
• 1909, John Joly, reestimate: 150 million years
• 1893, T. Mellard Reade, sedimentation rates: 100 to 600 million years

This is the short version of the list - a lot of scientists gathered data and worked on the problem.--Percy

https://tinyurl.com/y7pkdx6s

Bluster is all you have though.If you really put your mind to it I think you could come up with a few other lines of geological evidence that have received mention over the years. Amnesia much? Yes, oh seer, soothsayer and purveyor of flim-flam. Then why do none of your posts describe your evidence? What happened to your claim to use all the same evidence we do but just interpreting it differently? The geologic timescale says nothing about what lived where. I know you live in a landlocked state, but surely even you know you can wade into the water at any ocean beach and find life living on or in wet sediment. No one but you has ever said that trilobite speciation takes millions of years. No one here believes speciation in general requires millions of years. Even own long-lived species is thought to have evolved not more than a few hundred thousand years ago, so speciation times of millions of years are not something anyone here would think necessary. Where do you think ignorance, misrepresentation and dishonesty will get you? Oh, right, President of the United States. I think we all agree that trilobite speciation taking millions of years is preposterous and will have to go, but that's something you said, not us.--Percy

Only people who are dishonest about the flat earth beliefs of the Biblical writers. I doubt anyone here has any doubt what is meant by "fountains of the deep" and "floodgates of heaven". The people who wrote the book viewed the world exactly as it is described in Genesis - as a flat place covered by a dome with water above and below.I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I play with you is the hilarity of watching you pretend you don't understand the plain word of God. Say, is that a cock crowing that I hear? Was that the second or third time?Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo