Why is evolution so controversial?

More like the Reality Crucible. Reality leaves evidence. If creationists had any evidence it would be treated just like any other evidence. To get through peer review you only have to convince a handful of peers that you have an interesting and valid point. Nobody actually has to accept your hypothesis.Publishing a paper gives your peers a chance to shoot holes in it. The problem for creationists is that their ideas are all holes.

Hmm, I missed that. However, what do you mean by modern seafloor sediments being unlike the geological column? Of course there are differences. The modern sediments are younger, for one and thinner for another. There are reasons for this if you want to discuss.

quote:

---

All you've done is assert that they are. There's no similar layering and I can't find any evidence of fossilization going on in anything I looked at either.

---

Then you haven't looked very hard. Try this:http://green.rpi.edu/archives/fossils/ Why should it? We know that the ocean basins are actually younger than the continents. Why should they contain rocks that are older than the basins themselves? I'll be sure to pass your recommendation along.I'm not sure where any of your post could be further from the truth. Do you really want to discuss this or are you just going to bloviate?

Hey, Faith, remember how you don't know anything about geology?

It's published at EvC, one of the most prestigious scientific publications on the planet. What more could you ask for?I've given my reasoning, you should answer it. If you look around the world you SEE that it has come to an end. Tanypteryx says well sure, that's because it's now eroding. But the question is why, what made it stop, what made it start eroding? It stacks up for hundreds of millions of years and then stops. Odd that.1) Location problem: Now we're told that it is continuing, but not where it originally accumulated. No, it's continuing at the bottom of the oceans. Which of course makes no sense if we're talking about the sequential record of time on earth during which its flora and fauna evolved from primitive to modern forms. If that's what it's about it makes no sense for it to stop accumulating where it's accumulated for supposedly hundreds of millions of years and start all over again at the bottom of the sea.2) And what happened to the Principle of Superposition in this scenario? That only makes sense when the strata continue to accumulate on top of one another, each new layer representing a more recent time period with more recently evolved life forms. Having it continue at the bottom of the ocean blows that one out of the water as it were.3) Fossil Record? At the bottom of the sea it can only accumulate MARINE fossils, if indeed anything gets fossilized at all under those circumstances. "MODERN" marine life of course, but still marine life, the primitive stuff, not the highly evolved stuff. According to the theory I mean.4) Time factor. After a few billion years the ocean floors SHOULD have accumulated quite a bit more than they seem to have done.5) the sediments accumulating at the bottom of the ocean really don't look like those in the geologic column. The geo column is limestones and sandstones and shales (oh my), but is that what is continuing at the bottom of the oceans?That's just a few thoughts, I've probably forgotten some others.\ Oddly enough I haven't doubted that you all find it helpful, and I'd like to understand that better. Of course I doubt its helpfulness is really due to the time factor, but perhaps to some way the system is organized. Perhaps this would be illuminated if the thread on locating oil ever got started. I get laughed in my face every day at EvC, but laughter isn't scientific argument it's just the effect of an ossified paradigm. Hard to take of course but not very convincing.

I notice you skipped over my proof of your lies. Typical. Pretty incoherent, but it hasn't stopped accumulating. It never has. BUt the sea flor on which it has accumulated ahs been moved to underground or land. Sea floor has been subducted and uplifted over billions of years. Completely incoherent. The principle of superposition applies. Each layer accumulating at the bottom of the ocean (and on land) represents a new time period with more recently evolved life forms. Yup, pretty much (but not only) marine fossils get fossilized at the bottom of the sea. And land animals get fossilized on land and in swamps and what-not. Each fossil is modern at the time it forms. Do you think that we expect billion-year-old fossils to be forming now? Billion-year-old fossils formed billions of years ago, and were subducted or uplifted, For the hundredth time, including several times in this thread, ocean floors HAVE accumulated lots more than we see today. But the ancient ocean floors have been removed by subduction and uplift (for both of which we have solid proof). Today's ocean floors are only a couple of million years old at most. Mostly calcareous and siliceous ooze, the precursors of limestone. Some clay that is the precursor of shale. In the shallower parts of the ocean, sand that is the precursor of sandstone.Sediments are not sedimentary rock, and do look a little different. But close investigation reveals the true story, that one becomes another over long time periods and the appropriate conditions. It's hard not to laugh when you can't even remember the mainstream explanation of the age of the ocean floor and its accumulated stuff from one message to the next. Talk about ossified, your brain...Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Hey, Faith, remember how you don't know anything about geology?This is gibberish. It is madness. It is insanity. It does not even rise to the dignity of error; it is a random jumble of words without meaning.

TREMENDOUS erosion after hundreds of millions of years, erosion that cut enormous canyons and cliffs and washed away a mile deep stack of sediments is quite the erosion, and it all happened after all the layers two to three miles deep had been neatly and horizontally stacked over some supposed hundreds of millions of years. And this erosion so completely ended the accumulation of the layers that they no longer accumulate at all where they had been fond of accumulating for those hundreds of millions of years and decided instead to start again at the bottom of the ocean. Oh well.

In the Grand Canyon walls we have rocks supposedly formed in deep water over rocks supposedly formed on dry land and rocks supposedly formed in shallow water, implying a LOT of risings and fallings of either the land or the sea. Yeah that does strike me as silly.

They aren't ever again going to form in the Grand Canyon area. Or anywhere else on the continents. That's why you all have them forming now at the bottom of the sea where they are not continuous with the supposed sequential upward-building supposed record of time and evolution on the planet,.

Much older. The lower end of the range is, of course, zero years, but the most ancient sea floor in the world is around 200 million years old, if memory serves.The seafloor off the east coast of the US should be around 100 million years old. Doing a little math, the sea floor is moving at about 4cm/year, and I'm guessing it's around 3000 miles from the mid-oceanic ridge to the east coast, so it would take 120 million years for the east coast, which used to be adjacent to the ridge, to move 3000 miles away.In addition to skepticism Faith's message expressed surprise, as if she'd never heard any of this stuff before. This has, of course, been explained to her many times, but she's never understood any of it, including, unfortunately, what you've just written.But her reacting as if she's never heard it before is an honest one. We know now that all these explanations go right over her head. She hides it as well as she can, does a very good job of hiding it, actually, but she still regularly comes out with howlers. Her inability to understand is reflected in this very thread by her belief that different people using different words to explain the same thing are contradicting each other.It isn't that she disagrees with what we're trying to explain to her, at least not in any specific way. It's that even after all this time she has no idea what we're trying to explain to her.--Percy

And this process is going to put the newly forming sedimentary layers on top of the continents? Sounds to me like it's going to bury them under the continents. The problem here is that a supposedly continuous accumulation of strata containing a supposedly ever-evolving record of life forms up through those strata, in order to continue to BE that record, has to build ON TOP of the previously accumulated strata plus life forms, but this is obviously no longer happening and can't possibly happen if it's now relocated to the bottom of the sea where it can only accumulate marine life, and where, according to your scenario, it's all getting subducted under the continents and disappearing anyway. Or something like that. Whatever you're saying it doesn't answer the problem of the discontinuation of the building of the Geologic Timetable.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,I think Pressie was assuming you understood that the higher the elevation the more a region is an area of net erosion, and the lower the elevation the more a region is an area of net deposition.This has been explained to you many times, plus it's just plain old common sense. Wind, rain, rivers, streams and gravity will always cause sediments to collect at the lower elevations, the sea floor being the lowest elevation and the ultimate destination for all sediments, though any sediment eroded from a mountain top will likely have many way stations (lakes, valleys, etc.) before reaching the sea.--Percy

I see, so what happened is that what accumulated over a few billion years on the sea floors has been subducted and burned up and that's that. So I guess that will also happen to the sediments accumulating on the sea floors now, so that not only are they irrelevant to the Geologic Timetable because they aren't building ON that Geologic Timetable, and because they are only collecting marine life anyway, which may or may not be getting fossilized, but they are disappearing under the continents anyway, making the whole idea that they represent the continuation of the Geologic Timescale a terrific joke.

I need to point out that in this post you are quoting something you attribute to me that I did not write.

Uplift has already been described in this thread, Faith, and in countless other threads that you've been a part of.It's funny how you can remember things like tectonic forces and uplift when it's convenient for you, like when you make up stories about the flood and the Grand Canyon (e.g., tectonic forces that cause the rotation of buried strata, uplift that causes strata to crack into pieces that the flood carries away), but which you conveniently forget whenever real evidence points to their actual occurrence, like sea shells atop Mount Everest.--Percy