Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

I am arguing from observations, most recently observations of the diagram posted by Loudmouth of the Geological Column as shown in the Grand Canyon. The Bible was brought up by others and I've been trying to stay off that topic. How are my objections to the ridiculousness of the millions of years geology has assigned to a layer of a few feet of limestone followed by millions of years of another layer of a few feet of limestone followed by millions of years of a layer of a few feet or so of shale etc etc etc "flood-based?"This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2005 12:46 AM

Look, you made a mistake. Do you have to compiunt that mistake with outright lies ?

quote:

---

I don't HAVE an idea about a (single) "layer cutting diagonally through other layers.

---

Yes you do. The first appearance of the idea is in your post where you ask: You said it, JazzNS didn't. That makes it your idea since you introduced it into the conversation.

Why before? You're absolutely right that it doesn't. But absolutely no one has proposed such a ridiculous model. So why are you arguing against it? Seriously, where do you get this stuff? You couldn't be farther from what we've actually proposed if you tried. Plants don't grow in the absence of people to grow them? That's news to me. They're not neat. I don't understand a word of what you're saying here. None of this jives with the model of sediment deposition that's been repeatedly presented to you. What doesn't make any sense are your objections, because they're objections to a model that no one has presented to you. You're objecting to a model that you've invented; that you've made up. Absolutely nothing about the model you're trying so desparately to refute bears any similarity whatsoever to the deposition model ascribed to by geologists, to the point where I simply don't understand your objections.If you were trying to talk about the Bible, and someone kept trying to refute the Bible based on passages from the Book of Johnson that described Martian visitors in the 1960's, wouldn't you be somewhat puzzled? Wouldn't you wonder what the hell they were talking about, since the Bible has no such book and no such passages? Wouldn't you find it kind of frustrating when you told them that, and they ignored you and kept on arguing as though you hadn't said anything? Where would you start with someone like that?That's where we're at now. The model you're trying to refute is nothing at all like the model that's been presented to you as the accepted geologic model of sediment deposition. It's clear you're not interested in learning about that model; it's clear that you have no interest in learning anything about the geologic sediments that you're so certain don't exist, even though you can literally walk outside and see them. So why are you still talking about it?

Wwll that does it.Not only are you deliberately posting off-topic material - for no good reason - you are lying about it and trying to blame others.In Message 210 Joe Meert pointed out that your claim that there was no doubt that the Flood occurred was false. Joe Meert made NO reference to the Bible.In your reply Message 229 you insisted that we "have" to "acknowledge" your beliefs. Although what this means is unclear it is hard to see how Joe Meert's post failed to acknowledge your beliefs in any way - short of the fact that he contradicted your statement.In my reply Message 231 I simply point out that if you are only referrign to your personal beliefs you should have said that YOU had no doubt that the Flood occurred. Since you refuse to accept this it appears that you did indeed mean that you object to people contradicting your beliefs.In your reply Message 254 you claim that the matter is off-topic. However the Admin's warning Message 241 simply refers to bringing up religious matters.In my reply Message 257 I point out several relevant issues that can be discussed within the remit of the forum (since they refer to science and history of science)In your reply Message 259 you deliberately introduce religious matters - despite being told otherwise by Admin. It is NOT a reply to my statements - because I made none

quote:

---

No, I wanted to be more definite, because the word of God IS the word of God, and that is my assumption just as evolutionism is yours. The facts supporting the Bible as the word of God are tremendous.

---

Of course there is no reason to do so since it does not change the fact that your original statement was false. You are simply appealing to your religious beliefs despite being told that they are off-topic.And although you insisted that we HAVE to acknowledge your beliefs you write:

quote:

---

Now, the fact that YOU don't believe and see no evidence for it doesn't matter to the discussion

---

So you complain that your beleifs are not acknowledged simply when they are contradicted - but you have no problem insisting that nobody elses' beliefs should even be considered.And then you finish off by saying that:

quote:

---

I haven't appealed to the Bible at all.

---

Well obviously you did - that was why you got the Admin warning.Of course after my reply we come to your current post. Now remember that the whole thign start because I pointed out that you COULD legitmately claim that YOU had no doubt that the Flood occurred but that your actual wider claim was false. And discussing the scientific evidence for that is quite legitimate within this thread.But do you even try to do that ? No! You bring up your religious beliefs again. Which is your only defence for your claim. Apparently because YOU beleive that science is less reliable than your interpretation of the Bible everyone else has to beleive it, too.

I did a few searches to look up the history of geologic science, thinking that by looking at the development of lines of thought we could see how scientists of their day came to their conclusions.This site Error is a good overview. For Faith the section between link 14 and 15 that describes Hutton and his rock cycle may address your struggle with old earth erosion/deposition concept.ABB

You're not being singled out or critcized, and I think you misunderstand my intentions. My goals are:

1. Help this thread maintain a scientific focus.
   ​
2. Let you know that your God and Bible positions have a proper venue at EvC Forum should you wish to pursue them.
   ​
3. While not a primary goal, I was also trying to help you see that there is nothing wrong with the flood as a topic. Your denial that you're arguing from a flood perspective makes little sense, for two reasons. First, advocacy for the flood is very much on topic. As I said once before, the flood is in the very title of this forum, [forum=-7]. Argue for the flood all you like. Second, while your above comment accurately describes some of your posts, they don't erase your other posts where you make arguments for the flood, so I don't think your denials about arguing for the flood are going to ring true with many people.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I don't understand what you are saying Crash. If a layer is underneath another one then, of course, it was laid down before the higher one. The processes, as I with no geology understand them, would lay one layer down and then some conditions change which produce the next.One problem that seems to be missed is that the calculated rate of deposition is a long-term average. I'm not sure that is relevant but may be confusing.Another is the time allowed for the deposition; we know that sedimentation can go on under water for millions of years if the water body stays in place. I don't know why Faith hasn't gotten that message yet.(as a tiny aside I noticed (I think it was Faith) makeing a comment on "bowl shaped" deposits when valleys and lakes were mentioned. My impression was that he felt the layers should each have a curve to them to conform to the "bowl" rather than the totality having bowl shaped boundaries(maybe I am misreading). If this is the level of thinking you are dealing with you may have to go much slower and in very little steps (short words might be a good idea too). I'm not sure what is meant by "at once" but isn't this the standard geological model? A lake or ocean sits in place for 1,000's to millions of years and layer are placed at it's bottom by changing circumstances at the source of the sediments. I don't understand your exact objection. What are you reading into Faith's statement that I am not?Faith's problem seems to be that he can not believe any such relatively undisturbed circumstances can exist for millions of years. Since we see ocean bottoms getting steady layers of sediment and have no reason at all to think that they can't last for millions of years I don't see how he can conclude that. Just what model to you think Faith is putting forward and what are you saying actually built up the sediments that the canyon cuts through. I'm not sure what you mean by "not neat". There are, it seems in pictures, areas that have many horizontal layers. The big picture is one of 10's of millions of years of "neatness". I think what Faith is missing is that there are details within those layers showing some episodes of weathering etc. However, again, it comes back to his inability to accept a sea staying in place for a long time? At least that seems to be the heart of it. I have no idea why he doesn't like that. Isn't Faith saying that we require that there be consitions allowing for sedimentation that stay in place for millions of years? Isn't it that simple.If the layers have no erosional unconformities (see me try to use a real geology term ) isn't that exactly what we are saying? So what is your objection?Meanwhile, I don't understand why Faith thinks that such conditions can not stay in place for as long as an ocean does. Perhaps he can explain that.

Naturally, yes. That's the Law of Superposition.What Faith seems to be saying is that some process carts over an inch of sediment in a wheelbarrow or something and lays it out to bake in the sun for 8000 years before any new sediment is added. He's objecting to that because he doesn't understand how a layer of silt could sit there for 8000 years without something happening to it. I'm objecting because I don't understand where he got the idea that sediment solidification happens at the surface. As I understand it, the layers that are solidifying - aside from sub-aquatic layers - exist below the general soil till, the stuff that plants live in, that animals burrow through, that water and wind push around, etc.Faith is determined to argue from a standpoint that no terrestrial sediment layers could form because sediment solidification happens only at the surface, and therefore could never happen in the face of wind and water erosion. Since I don't see anyone who told him that sedimentation happens only at the surface, I don't understand how he came up with the model he's arguing against. It's hard to tell, and this has taken me some time because you have to work backwards from his nonsensical objections, but he's clearly referring to some kind of stepwise procedure, like an eternal chef who drops down one layer of the geologic cake all at once, then takes a cigarrette break for 8000 years, and comes back to do the next layer. Faith finds it impossible to believe that nobody's sticking their finger in the icing, so to speak, for all those thousands of years.I find it impossible to believe that a grown man/woman thinks deposition happens that way, but hey, whatever. I mean, they're cracked, they're bent, they're eroded in places, they've undergone post-deposition metamorphoses, etc. We're not talking about a 7-layer geologic lasagna, here, like Faith seems to be. We're talking about a record of stone that bears all the marks of millions or billions of years of a very active planet.Faith has this idea that the geologic layers are not "disturbed", but in fact, many of them are disturbed. That's why geology is so challenging and informative - those disturbances are records of events in Earth's past. They're not so disturbed that they're incoherent, of course. I don't know how long it takes for a silt mass to become sandstone, or whatever, and I wish someone would say. I don't think it takes millions of years, and I don't think the material has to sit out in the open air for it to happen. For some reason Faith thinks it does. All his objections are based on the atmosphere preventing the sediment material from staying in any one place long enough to solidify. For some reason he doesn't think that a foot or more of topsoil till, complete with an entire ecosystem trying to hold it in place, is up to the job. I think Faith's argument is two-pronged:1) "Dry" sedimentation is impossible because nothing on land stays in one place long enough.
2) If all sedimentation is therefore "wet" then a global flood is the better explanation for that.Clearly he has no objection to sedimentation under water. It's the sedimentation on land - the "dry" stuff - that he refuses to believe can happen.

No, you are wrong. I did not understand what he was getting at, but jazzns is the one who gave the example of ONE diagonal "layer" within a "layer cake" and I was responding in the above, rhetorically asking if there is such a thing, since I didn't get his point, and ever since you have been hounding me and accusing me and wasting time. I still don't know why he wanted to make a point of it but apparently he was using the example to illustrate the obvious fact that something may appear horizontal from one perspective although its actual inclined disposition can be seen in relation to a horizontal background. Sorry but that is the truth. Kindly retract your accusation. He introduced the layer cake with the one diagonal "layer." Go back and READ and THINK!!!!!!!

SO lets get this staight. You admit that you DID misread JazzNS' post and that it was you that introduced the idea of a layer diagonally cutting through other layers. And yet you claim that *I* was wrong ? Why do you say that *I* should go back read and think, when I did exactly that - while you preferred to argue without checking ?Have the integrity to take responsibility for your own failings instead of attacking anyone who dares point out the truth.

Unfortunately this thread is about to be ended and I don't know which of the posts to answer here. Let me try Crashfrog's answer to NosyNed's. I'm a she. No man I know would take the moniker "Faith."The great ages of the Geo Column model that mark off the particular deposits of limestones and shales and sandstones etc. REQUIRES that for enormous periods of time those deposits were at the surface. This column was built up, right? It started with a layer at the very bottom, and another layer was eventually built on top of that and so on, right? If underwater it might have a chance of remaining relatively undisturbed for long periods, but 8000 years? 20 million years? before the next completely different kind of sediment starting depositing on top of it. This is implied in the rock formations themselves, the different types one on top of another, and the theory that this represents huge spans of time during which one kind built upon another kind.If it occurred out of water, unless there's some way the sediment could harden almost immediately on the surface, which I believe is impossible, it could not have remained a layer at all. That being the case these layers could not have retained their neat horizontal disposition such as we see in the Grand Canyon. Even if this was formed underwater TWENTY MILLION YEARS is a LONG LONG time for a few feet of ONLY ONE KIND OF DEPOSIT to sit undisturbed. And if that were not ludicrous enough by itself, then we are supposed to believe that a completely different kind of sediment SUDDENLY (sharp demarcations between the types of rock in the canyon, from one kind of limestone to another kind, or to shale or to sandstone) began to deposit and the other kind which had been depositing for millions of years just stopped altogether. This is IMPLIED by the rock formations themselves, the great ages assigned to them, etc.Yes, I don't understand how a thin layer of "silt" covering the extent of the huge surrounding area of the Grand Canyon could remain undisturbed for 8000 years unless this were a planet like the moon rather than windy rainy Planet Earth, but not just "silt"-- we're talking ONE KIND OF LIMESTONE -- JUST limestone, and ONLY that ONE kind, say "redwall," of the "Mississippian" supposedly building up in this neat layer for TWENTY MILLION YEARS, ABRUPTLY changing to a totally different kind of limestone or shale or whatever, for MORE MILLIONS OF YEARS.I never said solidification happens at the surface. I said that the OBVIOUS FACT THAT IT DOES NOT makes the Geo Column model LUDICROUS, because SINCE it does not a layer of ANYTHING COULDN'T POSSIBLY REMAIN IN neat horizontal disposition FOR THE HUGE PERIODS OF TIME THE GEO COLUMN MODEL REQUIRES. It doesn't matter if you think this limestone layer was laid down in small increments or all at once. According to the model there is a 20-million-year span compassed by that ONE block of redwall limestone named the "Mississippian" during which ONLY that redwall limestone was laid down, and my point is that there is NO WAY only one kind of deposit like that could have been the only thing laid down in such a huge span of time. The model does not wash.You are refusing to think about what I'm saying. Go look at the diagram of the Grand Canyon and ask yourself how each of those deposits GOT THERE, considering the TIME SPANS they supposedly mark off. Spend a few hours clearing your mind of your preconceptions about the ages and periods and just try to imagine how those rocks got there given the huge time spans the geo column supposedly describes and the absolutely different kinds of rocks that had to have occurred only during some one long period.Think think think. You guys are all in thrall to this ludicrous model. You've accepted it because authorities taught it. But it doesn't compute. Again, it is the Geo Column that implies that sediment must solidify at the surface, not I. I know it doesn't. Think about the Geo Column itself in relation to the rock formations it supposedly describes. It implies impossibilities. Look, just think about what is actually in the wall of the Grand Canyon. Think about the different rocks, in neatly horizontal layers, each one given a name designating HUGE HUGE periods of time during which supposedly they were laid down, and ONLY one kind of rock at a time. YOU explain how just ONE kind of sediment -- before it became rock and had nothing on top of it yet --also, there IS no layer of "general soil" between formations, or over any given formation, beneath which it might have slowly hardene, only this other kind of rock immediately above that couldn't have been there until the millions of years of its own kind of rock had passed -- not because I say so, but because the Geological Column idea says so. It is impossible, it is ludicrous, but that's what it implies. It's in your theory, it's in the rocks and the theory that supposedly explains their ages. It doesn't. Again, I am not saying this. It is implied in the ludircous Geological Column idea. LOOK AT THE ROCKS AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW A FEW FEET OF NOTHING BUT REDWALL LIMESTONE COULD HAVE TAKEN TWENTY MILLION YEARS TO LAY ITSELF DOWN IN A NICE HORIZONTAL LAYER!!!!!!!!!!!!! The disturbances you are talking about are MINUSCULE. What we actually SEE are remarkably neat horizontal layers. Over millions of years of normal disturbances they SHOULD have been rendered incoherent, but they were not. A great part of the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon is its intact strata. Yeah. It's implied in the theory of the geological column itself. If the Mississippian period represents 20 million years of nothing but redwall limestone preceded by a few million years of a different kind of limestone, and succeeded by a few million years of a completely different kind of sediment, you have to explain how it all sat still for those millions of years.Not to mention having to explain how ONLY one kind was being deposited for such a huge span of time, and why the transition from one to another was so obviously abrupt, which you can tell by looking at the diagram of the canyon wall. No. I don't think any such thing. Something along those lines is implied by the geological column explanation of the rock formations. It's impossible in my opinion, and the geological column explanation is nonsense. YOU have to explain how it could have taken 20 million years to lay down a layer of redwall limestone. Do you? Up to the job of explaining how ONLY redwall limestone in its presumably unhardened sedimentary condition stayed put for twenty million years until the next kind of limestone sediment came along? And there being no "general soil" between the layers anyway. I don't know if any of this happened in the atmosphere or under water. You have a big problem explaining it either way. I dunno. 20 million years of one kind of sediment only? Followed by another 20 million or so years of another kind? I accept that layers of different sediments form at the bottom of oceans, because you've all said so, but 20 million years of only one kind then millions of a completely different kind, then more millions of yet another kind until you have all the different layers of rocks in the Grand Canyon walls? No, I'm not bringing the Flood into this at all. I'm simply saying YOU ALL have to explain how the geological column can possibly explain anything whatever, given that it assigns enormous ages to the formation of only a few feet of only one kind of deposit which it then changes into rock, under some process you also have to explain, before the completely different formation above it begins the same process over another span of millions of years. You have to explain this because the theory assigns great ages to these formations. I do have an objection to sedimentation under water over 20 million years of only one kind of sediment, say redwall limestone, followed by another span of millions of years of a completely different sediment.And again, I'm a she.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2005 12:47 PM

Dear charming, kind and charitable Mr. K.,I did check. Mr. Jazz used the example of the layer cake with ONE diagonal layer which represents nothing in reality, and I responded by ridiculing it. He introduced it, I didn't. It was a bad example given to illustrate an unnecessary point.So I guess this thread will end on this lighthearted note.Have a great day.Your friend,
Faith

Faith, you really do not understand geologic processes at all - specifically, with regards to depositional settings and processes. Not one iota. You seriously need to go and read a textbook on geology and take a few field trips.I've been reading your posts and there are so many errors in your posts (in each paragraph, even) it would take hours to write a proper reply. And since you keep threatening to leave (and never do), I don't think it would be time well spent.For example: Not sure what you mean here. Are you referring to unconsolidated sediment or lithified? What exactly is at the surface? A column represents landscape evolution through time. At the 'bottom' of a colum you may have limestone (this represents a very specific depositional system and environment). Above that you may have a marine shale, which represents a deeper marine environment. Many times, you will see a gradation between limestone and shale, something that could be called shaley limestone or calcareous shale, sometimes you do not.A gradational contact implies a gradual sea level rise so that at that particular spot, limestone was deposited and then gradually overlain by more and more shaley constituents (shale = clay), until eventually the water was too deep, too poor in O2, too dark/murky, for deposition of carbonate to occur. If the sea level keeps rising, you may eventually get siliceous ooze (e.g., chert), etc. to deposit over the shale. If sea levels slowly drop over time, you will again get carbonate deposition, and if the sea level drop even further, sandstone (beach and eolian deposition), estuarine deposits, conglomerates (e.g., fluvial), etc. This is what Sequence Stratigraphy is all about.The more sediment you dump in one spot, the more the ground and crust underneath deforms due to the weight. You can get thousands upon thousands of feet of sedimentary deposition as long as the basin is stable. It will simply continue to downwarp amidst the weight of the overlying material. However, tectonics will not allow the landscape to go too long before it takes effect, except in the stablest portions of the continents - the cratons.If instead the contacts are sharp and abrupt between limestone and sandstone, that tells you deposition was punctuated by either erosional periods or possibly periods of non-deposition (those are generally contentious interpretations). And the affected rocks may either be semi-consolidated or lithified. Meaning you are either eroding sediment or rock. If you bury limestone, it lithifies, and then bring it back to the surface, you will erode the limestone until it either erodes completely away, or depositional (instead of erosional) processes dominate. In which case, limestone (the lithified rock) will then be covered by whatever is being deposited at the time, be it alluvium, colluvium, conglomerate, sands, silts, etc.It is only in this scenario where you can have 20 million year old gaps between one depositional process and a preceeding (i.e., overlying) one.Not only that, but 1,000 years later, all that stuff that originally covered the limestone, may be completely eroded itself. The only records we have of some erosional processes are remnants of that eroded material. Therefore, the time implied in ONE geologic column is not only apparent in the amount of time needed to deposit the sections, but in the amount of time to deposit and erode sediments and rocks that we will never see represented in situ.How do we know time/rock is missing? Because if you travel a few miles away to another section/column, that missing rock might not be missing.We know the Rockies and the Uncompahgre Plateau were eroded down to almost peneplains several times each because we have the material from each erosional process - Maroon Fm. and Fountain Fm.How long would it take to completely wear down the Rocky Mountains you think? How about doing it at least twice?So, you might look at a geologic column and be missing 90% of what was originally deposited in that one area. What you are seeing is simply what did not get eroded out.Now, that was BRIEFLY commenting on ONE of your paragraphs.

Faith, 1/ Where do you see limestone beds being deposited in anything but a horizontal layer?2/ Please show, with cite, where 2 feet of limestone took 20 million years to deposit.I don't think you realise the time gap between one bed stopping being deposited on, & the next one starting. That being why the beds are different; local geography has changed. A Mississipian bed isn't necessarily laid down over the entire Mississipian.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

I am arguing from observations, most recently observations of the diagram posted by Loudmouth of the Geological Column as shown in the Grand Canyon.

---

That diagram was just that, a diagram. It is a conceptualized drawing that does not represent the actual thicknesses of each layer throughout the entire area. I am sorry if there is any misunderstanding about the diagram, but it does not imply that the layers are of the same thickness in every area.

quote:

---

How are my objections to the ridiculousness of the millions of years geology has assigned to a layer of a few feet of limestone followed by millions of years of another layer of a few feet of limestone followed by millions of years of a layer of a few feet or so of shale etc etc etc "flood-based?"

---

Limestone is a rock that is created in still waters. This is why it has uniform thickness. It also accumulates at a very slow rate, as has been mentioned several times. Also, not every aquatic environment is conducive to limestone accumulation meaning that each limestone layer represents an on again/off again deposition.Firstly, why should a still water environment erode limestone?Secondly, why would this limestone be eroded if it is covered up by other sediments later on, such as river sediments?