Summations Only

I do get tired of all the straw man complaints. No I do not reject ALL science. At least try to follow what I AM claiming whether you agree with it or not. It's this sort of misrepresentation among other distortions of the discussion that makes it tedious and unproductive.The rocks no doubt "speak volumes" to you, but don't attribute their remarks to God because YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAY contradicts His written record.ABE: And stop trying to compare a written work with your own ponderings about rocks. The claim that they are subject to interpretation in the same sense is absolutely bogus.Face the fact that your trusted authorities are human scientists and mine is the word of God and those who interpret it rightly. There is an inexorable clash here and there is no point in pretending otherwise.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why should it take a great deal of time if there's tons of it suspended in the water that is rising over the land? Five months isn't enough? And this is related to the formation of limestone strata how? Amenable no doubt, but not necessarily NOT amenable to a shorter time period and unusual sedimentation rates. Oh some of the reconstructions of what may have happened have more plausibility than others, and are not at all based on "what we don't know" as you put it but on what we extrapolate from what we do know to a situation we can only imagine. Robust perhaps but not always reasonable and not very often really provable. We're going the best we can with what God has told us, and we believe God over any scientists who contradict what He has written in really very clear language. Edited by Faith, : correct quotes

I understand that completely. Let's say we have two clashing sincerely held sources of authority for what we are doing here. I'm not giving up mine and all your attempts to undermine it are just annoying rabbit trails on a thread like this. I don't think it's easy at all but for purposes of defending the Flood we have to stick to the broad picture.Sometimes I disagree with other YECs, very often those who come to EvC for sure. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would like to get back to this topic eventually if possible but right now I just want to ask: Would the Geological Time Scale ever have existed if the strata were not always found one on top of another in the order of evolution attributed to their fossil contents? The idea is absurd it seems to me.The point about the Claron, or any layer in the Geo Column for that matter IS that it is found in the order of the time periods assigned to it. abe: ABOVE the "older" ones, BELOW any that are more recent. If it weren't for this physical ordering the very idea of the Geological Time Scale would never have occurred to anyone. /abeI'll have to get back to this. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, it must be if it forms those deposits off shore in the Walther's model. That's the idea isn't it, that those sediments that deposit in the order illustrated are carried in the water and settle out in turn according to their size? And the carbonates and foram ooze are there along with the rest of them. What else would one suppose but that they too are suspended in the water and settle out where their size dictates?. Wherever it came from to settle out according to Walther's law wherever it happened to settle out. Why should this be a question at this point? If it exists in that model then it existed in the water and settled out where it settled out. Perhaps it did for the most part "all settle out at once" in the Flood conditions, wherever there was a lot of it suspended over the land. We have to explain the thick limestone strata and the Cliffs of Dover among other deposits all over the world after all.I have a question about corals by the way: How much of the calcium carbonate in the strata could be attributed to crushed coral?

Yes I love that map. I'd love to have a huge poster of it along with a poster of the GS-GC cross section I also love, to pin on my wall. See, I LIKE geology.Anyway, what Smith's map shows is what is left of the strata from massive erosion of what was very probably the original stack miles deep. All in order, ascending from Precambrian through Holocene. Ascending, up the physical ladder. So that where an area is eroded away it exposes the lower strata, and the higher areas are what's left of the the higher strata, and it's all the same Geological Column just more intact in some places than others. There's no problem there, it's all the same geological column. The problem is when you have an entirely new deposition somewhere else entirely, say at the bottom of the English Channel perhaps, and you want to call that the next level up from the Holocene. "Oh, why is that a problem?" you are sure to ask, and all I can do is roll my eyes, sorry.Edited by Faith, : Puhunktchoashun

Found a creationist page saying there are dead corals on the deep ocean floor. Yes?

I don't know if the strata in the UK are all folded, but it should be possible to reconstruct the order in that case too. The point is that the stack would be there in order even if it needs to be reconstructed.A schematized poster-sized version of Smith's map would be really nice to have. The ones online are too small to get an idea of what's really going on.You say you aren't sure if Great Britain has coverage from Precambrian to Holocene, but the Smith maps I've seen suggest it has most if not all (the print is usually too small to tell), but even if it doesn't now, what I said is that it would have originally though areas have since been eroded away.Again the point is that the STACK is there and it CLIMBS up from the "older" to the "newer" and there is no way that it could "continue" at the bottom of the ocean. It has to climb one layer upon another to represent the Geological Time Scale. I really don't get how such an obvious fact escapes you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are changing the subject by insisting that I tell you "where it came from," that's why I'm not answering. But I can answer this way: The pre-Flood world was so fecund it produced enough for the depositions we see. We could also consider that the corals, like every other living thing, was hardier in that time period than since then, everything having deteriorated due to the massive death that the Flood brought about, which created a bottleneck in every species. Eventually that would take its toll on the vitality of every creature since then. So there's my guess where it came from. Bazillions more corals then than now, same as with every other living creature, and much better able to withstand threatening conditions then than now too, although of course the Flood took its toll on them as well as every other creature.\Probably the answer to standard Geology's insistence on the need for huge time periods, especially for the abundance of living things in the fossil record, is always that the pre-Flood world was incredibly more lush than the world we are left with after the Flood.You also express astonishment at my saying it would have been "susp0ended over the land," but that is what would have been the case as the water rose, would it not? It would then settle out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Although you think you have evidence for your speculations about the past, you don't have any more than a creationist does. You have sedimentation rates for TODAY, and you merely ASSUME they apply to the past. That's not evidence, that's just the usual speculation that is necessary in all attempts to reconstruct the prehistoric past.
\

So all the limestone strata were "grown in place?" How do they manage to grow into a form that is exactly like all the other strata then, a slab of rock basically horizontal, flat on top and bottom? Growing things are rather more unruly than that. (so are sand dunes for that matter, yet supposedly it's sand dunes in that massive flat rock called the Coconino.)So the limestone in the Walther's model also "grows" there, looking just like the depositions of sand and mud and so on?So it couldn't be that they grew somewhere else and got loosened from their growing place and transported as loose sediment to their stratified location where they were deposited in the same way as all the other sediments?I just had to express that much. Will come back to try to deal with the rest of your post.Oh, but I can answer now that God's written word is a lot more articulate than His natural world for which we have only our own reasoning in order to "read" it. That's why He had to give us the written word. There are not "two versions" of the Creation story, there is only one, the problem is we read the rocks wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually I don't see why there has to be sedimentation going on somewhere all the time at all, which is what you seem to be implying. But anyway, if the sedimentary deposition "just goes elsewhere" and stops building up the stack, which is the model for the Geological Time Scale, that's effectively the end of the Geological Time Scale although it is not the end of sedimentation or history or anything else.And again this is so obvious...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So if the land is covered with water it stops being land for the duration of the coverage and resumes being land when the water goes away? Such a nomenclature seems pretty weird to me but if there's a good reason for it I'll reconsider it.The rest of your post you just refuse to consider anything I'm saying as usual.What I'm doing is giving you the scenario, the alternative model for the same information you have. That's really all you have too, is your own scenario although you think you have evidence for it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Eroded material doesn't have to form layers, it can just pile up, it can just become talus, all kinds of things. There is no reason whatever it has to contribute to the Geological Column, let alone the Geological Time Scale.There would be no Geological Time Scale unless the "time periods" formed one on top of the other.

I can guarantee you that a Geology course would not change what I'm trying to say here. I've read a LOT of Geology, I just put it to my own uses.I am talking about the STRATA for crying out loud. They are ALL flat slabs of rock. Limestone, sandstone, all of it, FLAT SLABS OF ROCK!!! Sheesh!