Summations Only

Ah, so you don't trust those rascally scientists, do you? So, you have a better interpretation of the data? Do you really think that every article is going to provide all of the data? You need to go into the original literature for that; and a lot of it is there in the references section. Did you look at those?Try that little "[7]" for starters.By the way, when did you suddenly become interested in evidence? Does this mean you are going to provide some from here forward? Okay, so now you have that "[5]" notation. That would be the source of this data. Did you check it out?I'm curious about your hyperskepticism. Do you ever apply that to your own beliefs? Not exactly. These lakes had enclosing shorelines and, on occasion, dried up. They also had clams and molluscs of fresh-water type. But why would that be?Oh, that's right! It's what you want. I recommend more practice. Or both.I"m not sure what the rest of your sentence means.

It is strange that you, of all people, should make such a complaint. Unlike you, I do not know every detail. I accept the interpretation of authors because it fits with what I do know.

Why is it that when you want deeper detail on our posts, you are willing to go beyond the scope of a discussion board, but when we ask for even a tiny bit of evidence you clam up like Fort Knox?Basically, salt can dissolve on contact with fresh water. This creates voids which then can collapse, disrupting the layers above.However, salt is also plastic and will flow under uneven loads. So, if there is more weight on one part of a salt bed, it will try to relieve the stress by flowing away from that excess load. Again, this causes upper layers to sag and deform, commonly to the surface.Here is a word from Wiki about the formation of evaporite deposits. (Evaporite - Wikipedia) Note that some kind of an enclosed basin is necessary. An example woudld be the Great Salt Lake or the Dead Sea, for instance.This is the order of precipitation of minerals from a marine source of water. For lakes it would be a little different, but halite and anhydrite would dominate. A similar zoning is found around salt domes also. These phases will plot around a lake from center to edge and top to bottom, so that the last material to precipitate would be from the most concentrated brines. This is seen in the Green River and Piceance Basins in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

Here is a discussion of dessication cracks by Glenn Morton. Some of these cracks are in salt and some in other sediments. Whatever the rock, the cracks show dessication, which, of course would not be possible under global flood conditions.http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/...+the+Global+Flood

I don't understand this statement. Why would all layers be underwater at all times?

Yes, I kind of included them with dessication to keep things simple. However, I think that most of the time evaporation in a restricted basin is necessary to generate the salinity differences.Glenn MOrton makes a good point in showing how they do not propagate from layer to layer, which indicates a sequential deposition and not some kind of post depositional origin that Faith seems to favor.

I think you would find that it's all a bit more complex than that. I find it odd that you have accepted Walther's Law, but now reject stacked environments.

Very possible, but to me the surface would also include the bottom of the ocean. The depositional surface is the surface. We might go from one formation to the other continuously or there may be an interruption. Personally, I think that there is more time represented by the interval between layers than within the layers themselves. The question is, how did the cracks form? Certainly we know what cracks look like in dried mud, for instance. The key is dessication. That doesn't happen under water except under unusual conditions, and it doesn't happen with burial compaction.... So, what is your alternative?

By comparison with known occurrences of dessication that we can see today. For instance, in volcanic rocks we know that cracks occur upon cooling. We know that mud develops cracks upon drying. Do you have another way of producing cracks like these?ABE: Do you understand what I'm getting at here? The fact that cracks form upon drying is evidence that cracks in ancient rocks also formed that way. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Why is it unknowable?Isn't it just as crazy as music being stored on a tape or in an Ipod? A Victorian era person would say that's pretty crazy. Your problem is that water depostion also explains what we see going on today. We see sediments just like ancient rocks being deposited right now in the ocean, in rivers and in lakes. I've asked you this before, but, 'what makes your flood sediments different?' What I think is REALLY nuts is that if I play CD the same songs come out in the same order every time. This is just a crazy world! Why does it look like it's 'done'? That's like saying history has ended. People a hundred years from now, might disagree. This is a very self-centered viewpoint that seems common in our society these days. As scientists we need to look both back and forward in time, being 'time-centric' is misleading. No, the GC is not a 'done deal' it will continue to erode until the land has been leveled to the sea, or there is another mountain-building event. There is nothing in the geological record to suggest otherwise. Why not? It seems to have done okay up to this point. Life has apparently undergone several crises in the past and still thrived. Not really. Erosion will continue and deposition will continue as it always has. What ever is alive at the time will (might) leave a record of it's passing. Even in modern deep-sea sediments we can see layers that show the eruption of major volcanoes. The tape goes on; imperfectly, but there is no reason to suggest that the process has stopped. The only reason that evolution would end is if all life ended. As long as there is a microbe remaining on the planet life will endure. This is a process and it is far from over. We see only a snapshot of what is going on around us. The fossil record gives us a motion picture of that process. We have not reached the end of time ... yet...

Some didn't, but some others did. I don't see this as a problem. If the deposit was terrestrial, we would expect mud cracks (and guess what....). Or, if it was deep-sea muds, it may never have dried out until it was exposed by erosion. For instance we now see a number of substances, some toxic, weathering out of certain Cretaceous marine shales in the Rocky Mountain west and California. Between our activities and natural erosion, these materials are finally at the surface as you describe it.

Then what do you think makes up the geological column? Time? Sediments? Events? Why would it stop? Why isn't it continued in the Mississippi Delta, or the Bahamas Banks, the saline lakes of the Afar, the beaches of the Mediterranean, or the deep sea oozes? I'm not sure what you are talking about. Well, it is near the top of the sequence. And it has been uplifted. So I don't see the problem there. Except for what is yet to come. To you, it makes no sense. But I don't care where it happens. As long as there is sedimentation, the geological record will grow. You have not explained why, you have only asserted that this is so.Why would it all end? Your own doomsday wishes?

Why not. It happens all of the time in the geological record. Sedimentation stops in one place but continues on in another. And your evidence for this is?So, on goes erosion, right? What do you suppose happens to the sediments created by that erosion? Does it disappear because you think that nothing can be deposited after the Claron? Or has erosion stopped also? I'm having a hard time getting your logic on this.
So, where do you think the sediments come from? I'm sure you are right.

So, what's happening to all the foraminifera being deposited in the Mississippi Delta. All those fossils in all of that sediment? Well, sure if a layered sequence is uplifted, sedimentation stops, but what about all of the sediment washed someplace else? Not at all. The only thing I really accuse you of is not answering my questions and refusing to supply evidence for your assertions.

Hey, it's your flood. If you don't know anything about it, what are you doing here arguing for it? Well, I compare what you tell me with what I know about sedimentation and time. And you keep coming up short. Not really. I've studied both sedimentation and paleontology. What you are saying doesn't make sense. It only appears to be that way because you have compartmentalized all data such that there is no relationship between them. To everyone else, erosion is related directly to sedimentation, for instance.