Summations Only

Again Faith, we can and do observe what you call a wild assertion happening in reality.I provided one link but here is yet another that shows sedimentary layers forming on the ocean floor and describes core samples that show the process has been going on for millions of years.Look at the image at the top of the article where you can see a photo of sediment carried by the Amazon River that is then deposited on the ocean floor.From the article:

quote:

---

The study comprised geochemical and palynological analyses of sediments from a hydrocarbon exploration borehole, situated offshore of Brazil, that reached more than 4.5 kilometers below sea level.

---

Faith, what you call a wild assertion is simply the process that happens at every river mouth, that happens whenever wind blows material over the oceans, that happens every time something dies in the oceans.What you call wild assertions are simply reality.

quote:

---

This is a good question. I honestly can't say that I have any idea what Faith means by some of these statements.

---

I don’t think she knows either.

Yes, this is the problem, everybody keeps answering me without having a clue what I mean. If you don't know what I mean why don't you ask a specific question since I don't know what you aren't getting. You're all just saying utter irrelevant nonsense, that's all I know.

Tell ya what. I don't see the picture as you see it but all this is not really relevant to the main point, so let me try to state it in a way that I hope will make it clearer by limiting it. There are huge lengths of the Grand Canyon walls that ARE made up of originally straight and flat strata that are still visibly only slightly off straight and flat due to changes after they were laid down. (And yes I know the strata taper, thin out, pinch out and so on, but I just want to address the parts I'm talking about). Let's stick just to those areas: I see no way that the supposed time periods that are assigned to various levels in those walls, and the landscapes supposed to have existed for millions of years at those very locations, could have resulted in the flat slabs of rock that now represent them, based on this typical way of interpreting them.One more thing: I know the canyon walls ccontain mostly marine fossils, and while the same question applies to them as to the higher levels with the land fossils, the basic form is the same (The Grand Staircase and the butte to the south of the canyon are all made up of straight flat strata) and it's easier to address the land strata.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.

So we know that it's sedimentary rock and we know it's marine and we know that marine sedimentary is laid down over flat surfaces. Like snow flattens a landscape.What IS the problem?

Of course not.There are hills in the geological record, such as the Shinumo hills in the Tapeats sea that rose above sea level. That's exactly what we have been saying.

Okay, so now you are narrowing the field and excluding places like the Temple Butte, right? What about places outside of the Grand Canyon? I suppose those are off limits for discussion as well.And, by the way, what is the problem of 'straight and flat' sedimentary contacts? Exactly what is it that makes them unbelievable? Please explain why. Your inability to understand does not constitute evidence.Every bedding plane in a sedimentary rock is a discontinuity in sedimentation. As such they are a visible representation of the state of sedimentation at a given time. When a footprint occurs withing a siltstone and then it is covered by another layer, why does that footprint not represent a point in time?

Are you saying that this is everyone else's fault? I have been asking questions all along, Faith. Your most common response seems to be "that's irrelevant". For instance you told someone here that elevation is irrelevant. Well, if that elevation puts something above sea level, that would be extremely relevant, not?

For instance, we know that the mid-ocean ridges are far from flat. In fact, they are very jagged and have high relief. As the crust ages away from the ridges, they are increasingly (and slowly) covered by deep sea sediments to the point where we have abyssal plains, very flat expanses punctuated by the odd volcanic seamount.

Faith, I have asked you this question before and we will see if you are able to answer it this time.What features would a geologic formation need in order for you to admit that it falsifies your young earth/flood model?

Why is that a problem? Your ignorance is not our problem. Your refusal to accept the many examples of ongoing sedimentation producing flat deposits is not our problem.

It won't work but you can deny it if you want.

The problem is how it's physically possible to get from a typical surface landscape with flora and fauna to one of those slabs of rock in the stratigraphic column, the steps that would have to have occurred for that to be the result. I say it's impossible, there's no way to get from a seabed or a shallow sea or a hilly landscape or a beach or anything to a flat straight slab in the stratigraphic column.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You just wrecked Tangle's argument that the sea floor is flat. Thank you, saved me the trouble..

All of science says you're wrong. All of it. Moreover it can provide the evidence.Are we supposed to take the incredulity of an unqualified fundamental Christian as equal counter-evidence? Perhaps not.