Why is evolution so controversial?

I don't know why you are all insisting the sediments in the ocean are at all like the geo column when they clearly aren't. I produced the links that show that they aren't. 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.More problems with that idea though: Shouldn't any continuation of the Geologic Column / Geologic Timetable be producing the most recent life forms, adding on to the very top of the timescale? But at the bottom of the ocean you're just going to get marine life, right? So it's like you're starting all over building up this geo column, you're NOT continuing the Geo Timescale at the bottom of the ocean at all.It SHOULD continue just as the strata are normally laid down, at the top of the existing last layer. Not in new basins, not at the bottom of the sea.This is simply not the Geologic Column / Timetable.The Geologic Timescale is over and done with, kaput. Because it never existed in the first place. It's a fiction imposed upon a stack of sediments containing fossilized dead things, that accumulated over a short period of time. Then it stopped accumulating. It's over with.I also wonder why the existing geologic column isn't found in the oceans. Isn't that what core bores should show, some collection of the familiar layers we call the Geo Timescale? While all that was building up on the land why not also at the bottom of the sea? That's more of an academic question, I'm just wondering.ABE: But whoever that was who pointed out that after a few billion years the ocean floors ought to have more to show for it is quite right. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

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,.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The movement of the sea floor is very far from new to me, but in relation to a few billion years of accumulated stuff I forgot that fact, that's all.

I have no idea what this has to do with the situation in the Grand Canyon area where the sediments stacked up three miles deep before the land rose and the canyons and cliffs were cut and the Kaibab Plateau was washed clean for thousands of square miles and so on and so forth. This is erosion with a capital E and it only happened after the layers were formed three miles deep. The whole Geologic Column making up the "Geologic Timetable" from Precambrian to Recent Time is represented in that entire three-mile deep stack (with only a displaced dinosaur layer considered to be a disconformity or some such nonsense) and this Erosion absolutely ended its accumulation which will never be resumed.