Why is evolution so controversial?

Nested hierarchies is some kind of article of faith you think proves evolution but although I've looked at discussions of this phenomenon I must be missing something. Could you please explain graphically and in detail what a nested hierarchy is? Thank you.

It's not the geo column that interests me so much as the GEOLOGIC TIMETABLE for pete's sake, although the idea that any kind of layers that occur anywhere ARE the geologic column makes no sense whatever. As for the Grand Canyon I simply like it because it's such an excellent exposure of so many layers AND supposed "time periods" in one place, but of course that is getting garbled into me supposedly thinking that's the only geo column/timetable on the planet. This topic is now so confused and crazy there hardly seems any point in trying to sort things out.

The fact that the basalt is intrusive through the Supergroup does not mean it didn't also flow aerially and since I said nothing of the sort you must be hallucinating.I also said nothing to imply that schist is an intrusive rock. It's there at the bottom of the GC, sedimentary rock metamorphosed into schist and I said nothing to imply any different, unless of course you are again hallucinating.If you can guess then I can guess. If it isn't clear what the sedimentary source of the Vishnu schist is, my guess it's remnants of the Supergroup that got displaced by the tectonic and volcanic forces.You haven't showed me to be wrong about anything. You haven't even understood what I've said or been trying to say. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you RAZD. I suppose I should have been able to guess that. In any case I get it, it's basically the principles of microevolution which are never in dispute, to which has been added observations of completely different kinds/species based on some collection of similarities that seem to make them fit right in. Their own microevolution into breeds and races then continues the format, and then again you have to piece them together with some other kind that is subjectively determined to have enough similar characteristics to be ancestor or descendant. So of course I would have to question the artificial connections between kinds but to do so would mean having a much more detailed description of just what characteristics are being invoked to create the supposed continuation from microevolution to macro at each level. Probably too much for me to take on at this point. But I do thank you for going to that trouble to spell it out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Many people would be wrong because you have quoted me out of context, and that's the same as lying,.

duplicateEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Y9ou guys dobn't seem to know the differ4ence between when I'm struggling to get an observatyion into words which I've said over and over is my intention here, and the idea that I don't know any geology. I'm saying something DIFFERENT than what geology says for crying out loud. What I know or don't know is irrelevant if I'm making an o4riginal observation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

WHEN I AM TALKING ABOUT SMALLER SCALE I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE OCEANS AND I'VE MADE THAT CLEAR ENOUGH TIMES FORF YOUR OBJECTION TO BE RIDICULOUSZ.

Yes, dear Moosie, that is the PARTY LINE. Good grief. I've been trying to get some PHYSICAL FACTS into focus that I think CONTRADICT the party line. A couple of these are the enormous extent of the strata called the geologic column actoss entire continents as compared with small scale depositions ON THE LAND SURFACES NOW, as well as the idea that the ocean floor is now where it is continuing rather than above the existing column; in sum the idea that the geo column doesn't need to add to the existing geo column to BE the geo column.But that's OK, I do need to realize that the brains here are ossified around the party line and take my thoughts elsewhere. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Aside from what your dating methods say is possible or not, is there no OBSERVATIONAL fact about the Vishnu schist to determine its original sedimentary content?

Somebody asks me a question, where did the sediments come from for the strata, I toss off a casual answer that they must have been washed off the land mass. Now I'm hearing that "most sedimentary layers are marine," so I must be wrong. I'm just astonished at how a big problem can be made out of a big nothing.OK, sediments may ALSO come from the ocean, and should also have been churned up in the Flood and then also deposited in the strata. But since all of it ended up in the ocean and since the marine layers in the strata are interspersed among terrestrial layers, there apparently isn't a strict correlation between origin and deposition. Big screaming deal about nothing.AGAIN let me point out the alternative view of the formation of the strata by Establishment Geology: that if there is a layer containing marine fossils, or even a limestone layer, they postulate, no they assume, no they call it a fact, that that layer was formed right there on that spot in a marine environment. Then if the layer above that one contains land fossils they declare that the sea had receded for the duration of that land deposition. And it goes on up the strata back and forth like that depending on what sort of sediment is involved with what sort of fossil contents. By the time we get to the Permian, a mile above the Precambrian in the GC area anyway, we have a deep water formation according to a website about the GC that I suppose I can dig up if I have to. So at that level the ocean has risen to an enormous depth, even deeper than the Flood rose I would guess, which means it has done so all over the globe of course, but this doesn't bother anybody for some reason. Risings and fallings of sea level to such enormous heights seems to them to be normal geology. But they always complain that the Flood couldn't have done that even once, and where would that water have gone anyway?SO with all the mixing of the sediments and ocean water in the Flood there is no necessary problem with interspersing some marine layers with some land layers.

Just one of those bald assertions geologists like to make and treat as fact without evidence and then they get all pushed out of shape if anyone questions it.

But the placement of these things seems to suggest a different order. For the Vishnu to be older seems a bit odd considering that it occupies the space which the strata of the Supergroup must have occupied in that same area originally by the look of it. Those strata still exist at that same level after all, though broken and tilted in that small part of the area we get to see on the diagrams. You'd think they couldn't form at all if the area was already occupied by formerly metamorphosed sedimentary rock. Of course your dating methods will trump anything I have to say, but from the look of it I'd guess that the strata were laid down continuously with the strata above, and probably a lot deeper than we can see on the diagrams. And then we got that tectonic disruption, along with the release of magma from beneath the crust, the strata at that lower level were broken, shoved, displaced, tilted, metamorphosed in part due to the volcanic heat and the pressure above; the magma also rose to form the granite which also occupies the same level beneath the Tapeats, the whole disturbance raising the entire stack above the Tapeats which brought about quite the cataclysmic effects above the Kaibab, and there you have it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy said: The geologic column is presented to us hapless laypersons as a continuous upward stacking of sediments, which upward stacking is the basis on which the Geologic Timetable was formed. The column only exists in part in many regions of the world but it nevertheless is always interpreted in terms of the Timetable, so that you can identify a particular layer as a particular time period that occurred at a certain level in the column. If the column is not layers built one on top of another it is hard to see how the Timetable with its supposed upwardly evolving life forms occupying upwardly building "time periods" makes any sense at all. HOWEVER, if the situation is that you do correlate layering in the oceans with specific time periods such that the fossil life found in those time periods elsewhere is also found in the corresponding layers in the oceans, perhaps that makes some kind of sense: some of the continental strata do continue across the oceans, such as the Redwall Limestone. But if the layering in the oceans is supposed to represent more recent time periods, especially more recent than any found on land, I can't make any sense out of that at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, first, the separate "time periods" are often described in terms that imply that the fossil contents of that particular layer lived in that "time period" which is represented by particular rock. Not above/later, and not below/earlier. Yet this is nothing but a slab of rock with dead things buried in it.Second, as usual I'm thinking about the strata in the Grand Canyon area because I know how neatly parallel they are to a great depth, so that if any of those layers had been moved by tectonic force from one place to another we should expect distortion of that layer, shouldn't we? Perhaps you can elaborate on how tectonic movement created any of those tightly stacked parallel layers separately from the others? So, let me try to get this clear: what you are saying you SEE is the building of different layers by rising and falling of the sea? In that case you are seeing 1) something happening on a much much faster time scale than the building of the geologic column is supposed to have taken, which would be more consistent with something like a worldwide Flood, and 2) also on a much much smaller geographic scale: you are of course not seeing it to any greater depth than the highest tide or possibly tsunami could produce, not anything on the scale of the formation of strata to enormous thicknesses that span entire continents and even cross the ocean. The principles involved are there I'm sure, but the scale of the geo column is beyond anything being formed today. Alrighty, so you've got this mile deep stack of sediments now sinking into the crust, allowing the water to be as deep as needed to create the Kaibab (Permian) limestone without raising the sea level? Okay, so does the land rise again for the deposition of land type sediments and fossils above the Permian? The Claron formation in the Grand Staircase is the uppermost sedimentary layer and it is also limestone, so did the whole stack, now over two miles deep, have to sink again for that to be formed? How deep into the crust is it possible for the land to sink?Anyway, it does seem like you have either sea level rising and falling or land rising and falling because of the different kinds of sediments and fossils up the column. If not, please explain.Also, do you or do you not regard each of the "time periods" that are attached to various levels of the strata as former landscapes during which the particular life forms fossilized in those layers dominated? Of course, but how does such tectonic phenomena raise or lower sea level? There's a ton of evidence. It's called the Geologic Column. I don't get the problem. If sediments washed off the land along with all the living creatures on the land, that would all have been redeposited as strata by the Flood waters as well as the marine sediments and creatures.ABE: About the tectonic point, I can see how serious raising of the land could lower sea level, by how much though? But I can't see what could raise it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.