Summations Only

Yeah, try folding unlithified sediment. All you get is a mixing of layers. If you had lime mud in one layer followed by a silt layer followed by a sand layer, any attempted folding of those layers would result in a mixing of those layers which if lithified at a later time, would turn into a dirty limestone or a sandstone with a calcite matrix or a silty limestone.

Really?Take one yellow layer of play clay. Put a red layer of play clay on top of that. Put a green layer of play clay on top of that. Put this sequence on a table. Compress gently from the sides. You get beautiful folds and those layers of play clay certainly don't mix.So, unlithified layers don't necessarily mix when they get folded.....Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence

Is there play clay in the geological record?I guess it must have been deposited in the Plasticine Epoch.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Dr Adequate, it certainly does illustrate that unlithified sediments can be folded without mixing of the layers. So foreveryoung can't make a blanket statement about everything.He should have a look at rheology before making blanket statements. It explains how "unlithified sediments" can and do get folded without mixing. In real life, for geology, heat and pressure are some of the most important ingredients.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I just couldn't resist the pun. I could wait the rest of my life and not get another opportunity like that.

Yeah, the Plasticine Epoch really, really was funny. I actually spilled my coffee on my keyboard!

Well, he was talking folding lime mud, sand, and silt, not clay. That material may indeed just get all mixed up together . He was SORT OF on the right track, but didn't get it totally correct. Or something like that.But Pressie's point is that there can be soft sediment folding. FEY, see the Wiki article on soft-sediment deformation structures. Especially see the convolute bedding section. This deformation is probably usually (yes, weasel words) pretty small scale. You are not going to find large scale soft sediment folding (other geologists welcome to tell me I'm wrong).FEY, see what happens when you adopt the mainstream geology orthodoxy? Someone's going to hit you with the exception to the rule.Moose

Yip, you're right. I don't know of any large scale soft sedimentary folding (as in deposited now, folded a day or two or a few years later all in one go) in any sedimentary sequence. However, it certainly is possible.My idea was to indicate to creationists that real scientists have investigated those possibilities and can recognise them in the geological record if they are found.Those creationists always think that "evolutionists" ignore everything, because it could indicate "The Fluddy" and of all of science is just done to deny their versions of their beliefs..Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence

Aren't layers of rock on the scale of miles roughly just as plastic as clay on the scale of inches? In other words, aren't your clay layers more representative of lithified rock layers? Wouldn't you need to construct your layers out of something like very fine sand in order to have an accurate model of unlithified layers?--Percy

Well, the stiffness of modeling clay isn't what I had in mind when I made my claim. I was imagining something very wet still. Even with modeling clay, you get a mixing of the layers if you continue to squeeze it and roll it around in your hands. I remember getting gray colored balls as a result when I was a kid.

Yes, exactly, that was my point, too. Independent of Moose and Pressie's point about how poorly unlithified layers might mix, modelling clay is a much better analog for lithified layers.--Percy

Hi mindspawn, How about you quit making stuff up as you go along?Think about what you're proposing. You are suggesting that whales "hid" in a landlocked sea. Then the Flood came and flooded the entire world. The whales would have been free to spread across an entire planet of water, but instead they stayed where they where... for no discernible reason. Then the waters went down, with all of the whales still in their sea and none of them in the wider oceans or marooned on the land. Then, they waited about two-hundred million years. Then, without the benefit of any flood, they suddenly proliferated throughout the world.That's just silly.On the other hand, I am proposing that there are no whale fossils beyond about fifty million years ago because there were no whales. Have you heard of the concept of parsimony? I'm going to ask you to consider; which of our two explanations do you think is the most parsimonious?Mutate and Survive

Sorry guys to disappear so suddenly, enjoying the discussion but my life just got so busy. Courting a beautiful lady of note, starting a new business, entertaining clients, and of course celebrating the birth of Jesus. I'm back!

Did they have separate radiometric data for each of those fossils? Or does the layering always show the so-called earlier ones below the so-called later ones. If so can you show proof of that please.If you do not have such data, the assumption that there is a "progression" could be just that, an assumption.Edited by mindspawn, : learning quotes againEdited by Admin, : Fix quote.

The Hebrew word for the unclean animals on the ark means "not pure" (tahowr), and is different to the Hebrew word (tame') which means defiled >1000 years later, they are not necessarily the same group of animals. Because the flood wording does not describe the animals in detail like the Leviticus wording >1000 years later, we do not know which ark animals were unclean and which not, and therefore have to for the sake of argument assume 7 pairs of animals, which is actually 14 animals with 2 alleles each, which is actually 28 alleles as a basis for argument.Edited by mindspawn, : being specificEdited by Admin, : Fix quote.