Summations Only

Again, you simply start from a conclusion, make a bunch of unsupported assertions, present no evidence whatsoever and say "the flud did it".And so once again...Please explain how a flood could lay down a series of millions of repeating and alternating layers of fine sediment then coarser sediment.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin : added s to make assertion plural

1. Even if no other explanations make sense to you, you still need evidence to support the one you believe.2. Go out into your garden and get a couple of handfuls of earth; if you can get some sand and grit too so much the better. Tip it into an large glass jug, shake it up well, then let it stand for an hour.You have just simulated a flood followed by settlement.You'll notice that sediment is in layers with the largest particles at the bottom and the finest at the top.That is simple physics and is replicated in nature when floods occur. It is absolutely NOT what geological formations show. We see many layers of all sorts of sizes all out of order.Think about that for a while.

Oh right, compare a worldwide flood with what happens in a jug in your backyard. What YOU need to think about is what OCEANS do, which I just described up a few posts. Jug indeed!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Worldwide leaves are evidence of a worldwide tree? Come on.Worldwide strata are evidence of floods - floods in different areas, overlapping floods, floods above and below deserts. They are not evidence of a worldwide flood any more than a worldwide tree.

Nonsensical comparison. The strata are too uniform to be the result of separate incidents. Not identical, uniform.

Ahem: Message 149

On the contrary, the leaves are far more uniform than most flood layers.Only your logic is nonsensical.

We KNOW what oceans and rivers and floods do because we can see them and measure them in action. They obey the laws of physics which means that when a flood subsides heavy particles fall to the bottom first and lighter take longer. Heavy particles never fall last - or do you have evidence that shows the opposite?

quote:

---

I don't "assume" it, I conclude it to be so because any other explanation makes no sense.

---

By which you mean that you reject other explanations out of hand and insist that the explanation you like has to be the one. Hardly a great argument.So let's go back to that quartzite boulder.It makes sense to say that the stratum that the boulder came from was deposited, lithified and metamorphosed to become quartzite. Then it was eroded, so the boulder was separated from the main mass of the rock. And only then was it buried in sand which would become sandstone.It doesn't make sense to say that a big Flood did all that in the span of a year. And if you allowed even a year for that you would have no time for everything above it.

Obviously it happened a lot faster than you would expect it to happen, that's all. I don't have a question how the boulder broke off -- that was due to the friction between the layers when the lower ones were tilted up against the upper layer by the volcanic eruption beneath, during the Flood period, and of course the sandstone in which the boulder is embedded was scraped off mostly from the layer above, still wet of course, and was solidified along with all the other layers in the whole column. That's my theory. The theory by Paul Garner's group is that a very rough slurry abraded the tilted layers during the Flood, but the tilted layers were there already. The only question I have had is why that particular layer became quartzite when the layers on both sides of it aren't metamorphosed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't feel like going out of my way for someone who calls me intellectually dishonest. And I don't much care if this thread is way off topic either, because the Admins don't seem to care and the original topic is silly anyway.

Run away and cower.

Yeah, that kind of accusation will really earn you points. With everybody else here but me of course. Lawlessness abounds at EvC forum these days, in more ways than one.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Obviously it happened a lot faster than you would expect it to happen, that's all.

---

OK, what makes it obvious ? Can you give any real evidence that it's even possible in the little time you allow ?

quote:

---

I don't have a question how the boulder broke off -- that was due to the friction between the layers when the lower ones were tilted up against the upper layer by the volcanic eruption beneath, during the Flood period, and of course the sandstone in which the boulder is embedded was scraped off mostly from the layer above, still wet of course, and was solidified along with all the other layers in the whole column. That's my theory

---

So what evidence is there that this alleged volcanic eruption had any effect on the quartzite at all ? And there's no sign of the sandstone being "scraped off" another layer either (it's where it "should" be). And don't forget that the quartzite layer had to already be solid hard rock.

quote:

---

The only question I have had is why that particular layer became quartzite when the layers on both sides of it aren't metamorphosed

---

I think that the metamorphism may be due to the intrusions of igneous rock, but I can't find an explanation of how the metamorphism occurred so that's speculation.

You're worthless anyways. Actually, due to your dishonesty, you're making this place worse off.You're a side-show freak that everyone is laughing at. People can't resist poking you with a stick.