Summations Only

Just a few thoughts in answer to the posts above.Calling the idea of stacked depositional environments "nuts" isn't really how I'd prefer to say it, I'd rather be able to say what I mean more articulately, it's just that I keep being thrown by what seems to me to be a strange irrationality and unable to say exactly why it hits me that way, though I do give the reasons I have. So I know it's inadequate to say the least but I am left with just hoping someone might grasp what I'm alluding to.It isn't about LOCAL layering or even local "depositional environments," it all comes down to the Geologic Column which purports to represent long long ages on this planet by slabs of rock, flat slabs of rock. TIME as measured by flat slabs of rock. A different kind of rock per era. And their different fossil contents that supposedly tell us what a particular time period was like, what the climate was, what creatures lived then. This is what hits me as nuts and hits me that way every time it crosses my mind. Every time I think about the stack of rocks exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon for instance. Not a local event but the entire world, not a trackable time period in the present that goes from local flooding that deposits silts to wind blowing sand in from the desert, but unknown and unknowable time periods of the prehistoric past compressed into flat slabs of rock. The idea keeps astonishing me.Walther's Law is interesting because it gives a purely mechanical model for the separation and layering of different sediments by water. Most previous EvC discussions of the layering, such as in the Grand Canyon, pictured separate sediments laid down in water, not all but most anyway, without any reason for why one followed another, just that that's the kind of sediment that happened to be there at that time. It's been clear nevertheless that water does layer sediments, as in river deltas, but it made it all the more explanatory to have this model of how transgressing and regressing sea water actually does it, and Moose's river example helps as well. Now some say it couldn't explain deposition by the water of a worldwide Flood but to me it still seems precisely suited to that situation. That's not my point here though.What I keep trying to say with the nutty word "nuts" is something about how the purely mechanical laying down of sediments by water becomes Time Periods. Whole eras of time on this planet compressed into these slabs of rock. All I can say is it’s nuts, I don’t know how to say it better than that.And then there is that point I tried to make some time back about how it appears that the Geologic Column has actually come to an end, and everybody got all exercised about that and claimed that it’s continuing at the bottom of the oceans. Well, think about what the Geologic Column IS, look at those diagrams for instance, such as Sure looks like a done deal and after you all answer that it's continuing at the bottom of the ocean it's even clearer that it's a done deal.Think about the fact that the Grand Canyon is a done deal, it’s been cut, its record of past time periods is at an end. Add to it the record of the Grand Staircase whose layers were originally continuous with those of the Grand Canyon, just one deep block of strata about three miles deep before the Great Erosion in recent time that formed the cliffs and the canyons and all that. There may have been some layers above the uppermost layer there now, but that would be the end of it forever. An amazingly complete record of all the supposed Time Periods is in that three mile stack but there will never be another layer added to it.No, now we’re supposed to look to the bottom of the ocean for the continuation of the Geologic Column although there is no way the fossil record that has supposedly been climbing the ladder of evolution is going to continue the climb at the bottom of the ocean.So what happens to the fact that the known Geologic Column supposedly represents all the time periods the planet has gone through with its sequence of climate changes and varieties of flora and fauna that supposedly all evolved up the stack during all those supposed time periods? What happens to that if it is now located at the bottom of the sea? It’s essentially come to an end, the very model of Evolution itself has come to an end and nobody thinks that’s a big deal?Well, there's a hodgepodge post for you. Hope it conveys something I'm trying to convey although I know I'm not really getting it said.ABE: Sorry about the huge size of the images I post. It's good for showing the details but I'd rather post them smaller, and clickable for zooming, but I don't know how. That's just how they come from Photobucket.ABE: Trying to adjust the image according to Percy's instructions. I can get the main image smaller but now it zooms way too big. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : bunch of edits trying to adjust the image

Of course I get it, the problem for the Flood is how the cracks occurred on the surface of separate layers if they were not exposed to the air during the deposition of the entire stack. I've been thinking about it. First question I had was how the Old Earth system explains it if some of those layers never saw the light of day as it were.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, no, that's not the answer. The question is whether the "some" that were exposed to air is the same "some" that have the dessication cracks. This is apparently assumed, but the lists have been given separately so I'd wonder if there is really a correlation.

I'm saying it's the Geologic Column that appears to have ended, not time, not history, not even sediments being accumulated here and there. That's why I posted that image. There are places where almost the entire Geo Column is exposed from bottom to top, but even if exposed piecemeal here and there it is considered to be a physical reality, and THAT's what has come to an end. It is a physical phenomenon that supposedly demonstrates an ascent and this is reflected in its physical ascent too, which is quite apparent in the GC-GS area for instance. We don't have the Claron at the bottom of the ocean, there it is at the very top of the entire stack. And it couldn't be anywhere else because it represents Recent time that has accumulated at the very top of the entire ladder of evolution. To locate the next rung of the ladder at the bottom of the ocean, where it is physically not even attached to the Geologic Column as traditionally understood, and couldn't possibly accumulate the fossil evidence of the supposed next rung of evolution, really makes no sense. The traditional Geologic Column is on the continents, on the land mass, and it physically climbs from time period to time period according to OE interpretation, and it serves to demonstrate the Evolutionary model as it climbs. THAT is what has come to an end, that physical representation of ascent, the climbing itself. That doesn't even begin to answer what I'm talking about. But perhaps I've made it a little clearer above. Let me try to be clearer: I'm talking about the GEOLOGIC COLUMN, which the GC and the GS together represent as a physical climb up the ladder of time and evolution. THAT's what's a done deal. What you are describing is a devolution of all that, which really confirms what I'm saying: The traditional Geologic Column that has been the mainstay of OE and Evo theory is a done deal, it's over. History goes on but not the Geo. Column, not that record of ascent that we see illustrated everywhere in support of OE and Evo doctrine. THAT reached Recent time and stopped. You are missing the point, the physical record of ascent. You cannot relocate a physical record of ascent, ascent in miles, ascent in time, ascent in evolution, lower than the model of ascent itself without losing the meaning of ascent itself. Erosion is not the physical record of ascent, it's a destruction of it; deposition to continue the record would have to continue above the most recent layer, it can't start out at the bottom of the ocean and still be the Geologic Column. You are missing the whole point. Of course you would WANT to miss this point, but I would hope you might have a moment of clear honest recognition nevertheless. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But as I just answered Coragyps, that is of course the question: whether the deposits that are considered to have been exposed to air in the process of the building of the stack are the same ones that have the dessication cracks. It's assumed but I'm not sure it's really established. If I get ambitious maybe I'll try to correlate some of the lists I've seen that purport to describe the way each layer in the GC for instance was originally deposited, with whether they are reported to have dessication cracks. But that would of course support the Flood just fine. The only problem for the Flood would be if the dessication cracks occurred during the period of the laying down of the strata, but if they occurred from later exposure that would be expected.

I have no idea why the Flood did what it did, how could I know? I guess you are sure it wouldn't have sorted things as it did but I don't know how you are so sure of that either. I can only guess that it carried things according to their kind and their location, just guessing same as you. In any case you always bring this up in the middle of a discussion about something else, which makes it off topic.

It's an observation that it DID end, that the physical record of ascent in space, in time and in evolution, HAS ended, and the image is there to show that fact and all my descriptions make that fact clear as well. You simply refuse to apply your mind to the meaning of ASCENT as the defining element of the Geologic Column as THE model of OE and Evo theory. You keep accusing me of merely asserting things when what I have described makes the point you don't want to recognize. So be it.

Why are you answering a post addressed to Coragyps which has nothing to do with my conversation with you? And you are answering remarks about what the water would do with your totally irrelevant comments about sedimentation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

My post was specific to what Coragyps said and your response is totally irrelevant.

The topic I was discussing with Coragyps is not the topic I'm discussing with you. My post was specific to what Coragyps said and your response is totally irrelevant.

I'm still back on the Geologic Column, but if you want to raise a particular issue, do so.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You attributed your own statement to Moose.I forget who all contributed to the point, but some showed how Grand Canyon layers fit the Walther's Law model.I don't see anything that requires a great deal of time in the model myself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The point I was making about the Claron had nothing to do with its elevation, the point was that it was deposited at the TOP of the stack of strata of all the "time periods" before it [--"on top of" those beneath it, even if there were once layers above it]. That was my point about the whole Geologic Column, that it IS found as a STACK, which is what makes it a model for ascending time periods and evolution of life, so that if it is now supposedly continuing to deposit at the bottom of the sea it is no longer a continuous stack, and it certainly is no longer accumulating fossils in the line of evolution.Thanks for information about sizing the image. Also your earlier post that told me how to more easily post a reference to a message.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I see nothing in the model that requires a great span of time. The blending of the layers on the huge scale of the geologic strata may only show up at a distance of hundreds or thousands of miles. It doesn't matter to me whether it works for the Flood or not, it just looks like it must, there being really no other model anyway for how sea water lays down layers, and Moose seems to agree. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Someone back there asked how I can reject the idea of stacked environments though accepting Walther's Law. All I can say is I don't see environments in the layers described by that model, just sediments that get laid down in a particular order.ABE: "Environments" enter the picture with the fossil contents of the rock.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.