Summations Only

So I guess for now I'll have to do without getting a better picture of the phenomena under discussion since the footnotes go nowhere and you don't have the information either.How about the evaporites then? Do you have some answers for my questions there, or some footnotes to send me to?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I suppose it would be to you since you are fond of your idea of the clueless creationist.

1. I keep thinking I've answered this but I guess not sufficiently from your point of view, but that leaves it as a puzzle for me.2. I think I've provided evidence, as much as I have, so when you keep on demanding evidence I just take it as a form of dismissing anything I say, so what can I do but press on anyway. I don't know if it's just that you don't regard the evidence I've given as evidence or what.3. Maybe you think it should be possible to produce this evidence you think I haven't produced so I'm just stupidly not doing something that should be easy to do, something you think YECs should and could be doing that we're just strangely not doing. HBD seems to think something of the sort, says he even gave me advice about how to go about it. Maybe I saw his advice and didn't see anything usable in it or maybe I didn't see it, I don't know, but this whole complaint from you guys is incomprehensible so I just keep on pressing on as best I can. I just figure you know you are asking for the impossible -- basically just another form of ridicule or taunt -- and it gives you an excuse to continue the insults. Thank you, I was pretty sure it had to be caused by the salt itself. OK. Thanks for all that. How it causes the strata to sag is the part that was puzzling me and I'm glad to have the answer to that. The order of precipitation is also interesting but of course my task as a YEC is to figure out how the water from which it all precipitates got there after all the strata above were already in place. Clearly they were already in place when the salt dissolved and left the void that caused the deformation, so presumably the strata were deposited when the salt was dry. Or hadn't yet precipitated out of the water, or the water itself, as a body of water contained in a basin, wasn't there yet. Next questions would have to do with the particular sediments above and below the salt, whether there is anything predictable about that or not. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't have any reason to doubt any of that; it's the interpretations that are the problem, the time period scenarios, not the actual physical facts. I always appreciate it when real facts are presented, such as petrophysics gave in his account of how he goes about his work, I think in this thread earlier. (No it was in the thread about historical versus observational science: HERE.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I were an admin I'd suspend you for a while for confusing things with a stupid mockery of a post.

Questions came to mind while I was reading that, especially when I got down to the dessication cracks in the wells:1) I thought some of the layers of the Geologic Column were considered by standard Geology to never have become surface but were always under water, so that the next layer deposited on it under water. Yes/No/Which? That's one question.2) Another is if you are seeing the cracks in exposed surfaces, as in the walls of a well, how do you know when the cracks formed? (Unfortunately that is one of the many pictures on that page that I'm unable to see on my computer for some reason).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

ABE Rewrite: I'm having a hard time reading your dissertation for many reasons. One is that you give me no credit for doing exactly what you are recommending at times. Another is that you don't distinguish between contexts in which I say various things, as if EvC were a genuine scientific establishment or half the responses I get weren't just trash. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know you know the answer before I've even begun to think about it but save it until you know what I do think, which at this point I don't even know myself. ABE: Oh and please refrain from garbage talk such as about filtering through gopher wood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nor, presumably, if the layer was always under water and never at the surface, which as I said in the earlier post I thought was considered to be a common occurrence.But I'm writing this post because as usual I get a headache when I read about depositional environments. Please translate this stuff into actual factual observational statements: Oh yeah? And what exactly are the observed facts that led to this bit of interpretive mystification? What is actually SEEN in the mudstone and the dolostone? And if it's seen IN the stone, what does the term "environment" mean? Uh huh, and that evidence would be what? There isn't a single fact about these Members in this entire paragraph. Where are the facts, in other words the evidence, that justifies the recurrent phrase "was deposited in" this that or the other "environment." Do you get the question or is this kind of mystifying jargon so standard that you can't see the facts for the interpretations that have swallowed them up?

It was part of what was presented to me as is. But I pretty much know what sorts of things are interpreted as "depositional environment" anyway, I think the term itself is bogus. and serves only to obscure the facts. Present the facts if they are important, but they aren't "environments."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How's about you provide some of the missing facts in the paragraph I was complaining about and we can go from there? It shouldn't be too hard. Or even from your own examples if you prefer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why not? That's what I thought some have said, that many layers in the column were laid down underwater and never became surface. Which ones I don't know.

Let's put it this way: If you have silt along the Nile then that's its depositional environment, no problem. The problem is when you have a stack of strata and you claim a different depositional environment for each layer based on its contents, as if the environment had changed from one level to the next. THAT's what makes no sense. I do expect a rational person simply to see why it doesn't make sense, and beyond that I don't know how to prove that it doesn't, so since you won't see why it doesn't there is probably nowhere to go with this from here.

But YOUR problem is that you are spreading everything out to millions of years that really only took thousands. But even if it took millions, the idea of depositional environments becoming stacked one on top of another identifiable by different kinds of rock is nuts. Wny isn't this obvious and why can't I say why it's nuts? Is our present time going to be compressed down to a few indicators buried in a particular kind of rock? Do you really believe that? If nothing else think of what would have to be left out, and yet nobody minds saying a former "environment" was "oxygen-deprived" simply because the only life forms that got preserved in the fossil record were snails and something else. Isn't that insanity?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : typo correction

I used the term "surface" in the sense of "surface of the earth" meaning in the air, above water. The context is dessication of the surface of the rock, which would have required being at the surface of the earth. It wouldn't dry out under water. No, that wasn't the question I asked. My question was how you know WHEN the cracks occurred that are exposed in the walls of a well. Since they are exposed to air, that is, how is it possible to determine their age?