Why is evolution so controversial?

See post #306.

Typo, I meant "couple of hundred million.

I did not say there were no layers accumulating on the ocean floors, in fact I clearly said the opposite more than once, what I said was that they are not at all like those in the strata we see all over the continents. And your pictures bear this out. Pictures I also of course saw when I produced those links.

Ooh, good catch, I fixed the attribution. But what an oddly appropriate slip!--Percy

Yes, I have been corrected many times about the age of the ocean floors, which are continuously being recreated and subducted, but that poses even more problems for the idea that the Geologic Timetable is being continued there, which I believe I stated in a post to Percy above, as if any more problems could possibly be necessary to show the absurdity of the whole scenario.

As I said, the layering on the ocean floors bears just about zero resemblance to the layering of the Geologic Column. Yes I know that water layers sediments, that's how I know the Geo Column was formed by the Flood, and there's no way the layering now accumulating on the sea floor or in newly formed basins elsewhere has anything to do with the continued building of the Geo Timetable. Which has clearly come to an end, kaput, finis.

It's often pretty hard to tell what you're saying. This is you in Message 268: So which is it? They're still forming? They're forming but on a different scale? They stopped forming? You've said them all.In some parts of the world, those that are regions of net deposition, the geologic column is still gradually forming. In other parts of the world, those that are regions of net erosion, the geologic column is gradually disappearing.--Percy

Both. Some goes on top, some goes underneath, some of what goes underneath comes back in solid or liquid form. Yes. You just are intellectually incapable of understanding or even remembering modern geological theory. You've seen and read many accurate descriptions of exactly how this happens and you haven't even remembered that it exists. Start with Dr. A's geology thread. Oh it is. We measure it. We have, as you have already forgotten, all sorts of evidence including photos of layers on the sea floor, and we know a lot about them. You get an occasional non-marine fossil in marine sediments. But as I wrote above and you obviously don't understand because you haven't a clue about the mainstream geology is, some of it goes on top and some goes below. Of the stuff which goes below, some of it returns in solid or liquid form, it doesn't just disappear. We have images of it happening today. And you are ignoring that some goes on top. There are detailed investigations and scenarios for how this has happened for lots of interesting places. You've been exposed to a few of them, but of course you don't remember and can't learn. Ther's no problem to answer. Just a few looney tunes who can't face reality.

See my reply above. There are three classes:1. Stuff that gets pushed on top of other stuff.
2. Stuff that gets pushed underneath other stuff, and is never seen again.
3. Stuff that gets pushed underneath other stuff and returns in one form or another (uplift, lava).I know that comprehending the concept of three (very broadly stated) classes is difficult, but it's required.

"Bears zero resemblance" is an intensely subjective statement. A scientist would explain what differs between the two states and why those differences are significant. Unlike a petro-brained fundy, who would just assert.{ABE} Of course, there is a resemblance; both are layered. So it's definitely [/I]not zero resemblance. Now Faith should argue how little resemblance there is, and give reasons and evidence. Who am I kidding!Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,The only thing that is a joke is your comprehension skills. It's one thing to disagree with the explanation of geology, but you have to understand it first, and since you don't understand it you end up posting objections that make no sense.Yes, if all seafloor was subducted then there would be no geologic column, or at least a pretty short one. But as has been pointed out, seafloor occasionally becomes continent. This has been said many times, I just said it again in my message, and you quoted it.So how did you manage to miss it?Would you care to try again, this time not ignoring a key piece of information?--Percy

Of course there are reasons for it, but the differences make the ocean floor sediments unrelated to the Geologic Timetable, as so many other things about them make them irrelevant. This is not the Geologic Timetable, for the many reasons I've already listed. Thank you, so there are fossils formed at the bottom of the ocean too. Itty bitty ones but still fossils.Marine fossils of course, what else, but not even of the complexity of the marine fossils in the lower levels of the Geo Column. Certainly no addition to the Holocene or whatever the most recent time period in the Geo Timetable is supposed to be, with its mammals and other creatures supposedly evolved through the whole sequence of "time periods" from the Precambrian on up. Well, the MAIN reason the Geo Timetable should continue where originally located is that according to you guys supposedly it DID just that for hundreds of millions of years, built one layer upon another containing supposedly more and more evolved living things, and it did this CONTINUOUSLY for all those hundreds of millions of years. The fact that it did this so reliably is how you all know which layer, er, time period, is which from one location to another, which you can either observe to have repeated the sequence or infer it to have been so. But at the bottom of the ocean you have no such reference points, you are starting all over as it were. This is simply not the Geologic Timetable. Much obliged, I'm sure.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How Crustal Plates Move: Plate Tectonics - dummies - plate tectonics for dummiesAnd some visual references of how the plates moved and what was going onand a more in-depth video on how we figured this all out.I know it strikes you as silly because all this coudlent have happened in 6000 years. but your problem is we have a lot more time to play with

Who says I don't know anything about Geology? I had no problem at all following your geology course, 80% or so of which was already familiar to me from previous forays on the internet, and the other 20% mostly about stuff I object to such as the Geologic Timetable.

I do. I know this to be a fact because of reading your posts. They are gibberish.Let me explain what I mean. Take this piece of garbage: What shall I compare this to? Suppose someone were to say "And if there are kangaroos in Australia, what happens to the Law of Gravity in this scenario? Having kangaroos in Australia blows that one out of the water as it were."It would be easy to see that that person was a halfwit. It would be easy to see that the halfwit was making a halfwitted mistake. One might even guess that this mistake involved being swinishly ignorant about what the Law of Gravity is.But that's as far as one can go. A mentally normal person cannot reconstruct the mistake being made in the mind of the moron; and the moron has not expressed it. All there is to say about it is that it is garbage, it is insanity, it is nonsense.