Summations Only

Why would it be suspended in the water? Where did it come from? Why wouldn't it all settle out at once then, when we know that limestone has been periodically deposited at numerous times in geologic history? Because some limestones are coral reefs. Others are partially digested coral, as someone correctly reported earlier. Ah, excellent. You have a chance now to provide us with evidence that this has happened. Please do so. So, I see. You are allowed to pick and choose...But certainly it is true that you rely on what you don't know. This is clear from the lack of evidence in your posts. You are allowed to imagine things and make the real. So God isn't giving you much data, eh? Makes things kind of difficult. Why is that?

Probably. There is enough overlap of strat columns that correlation is possible over huge areas. But that isn't what happened. As William Smith found, it was possible to predict both rock type and fossils from one area to another based on geologic mapping. I'm not sure what your point is here. The principle of superposition is pretty well established.

That doesn't answer the question. Where does the carbonate come from if it is suspended in the water? If the materials aren't there, it doesn't matter what Walther's Law says. Okay, show us the evidence that all of that carbonate was suspended at one point in time. That would be such a foram bloom that it would probably cause extinction on its own. The amount of carbonate would almost suggest a dilute cement slurry rather than a suspension of carbonate fossils. Again, that does not answer the question. Where did the carbonate come from? You tell me where it settled, but where did it come from? Because you just said that it settled out in some specific location. I'm asking where it came from. So, you are not going to answer the question. Okay. "Suspended over the land?"Whut?How did it get there. All you are saying is that 'there was carbonate'. That's what I'm doing. Long periods of quiet sedimentation isolated from terrigenous contamination. I have no idea, but it is huge. Most limestone is extremely fine-grained, textureless calcium carbonate grains. I've read of significant contributions from the byproduct of coral-eating species. It's really pretty amazing to see the extent of carbonate sands on the continental shelves.

Evidently. However, your training appears to be lacking.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.[/qs] But they are all folded, aren't they? I'm not sure that Great Britain has that much coverage, but this is moot.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.[/qs] With certain limitations, sure. However, if uplift is sufficiently large, older rocks are exposed so that older rocks are actually physically higher. Erosion and deposition have been going on for billions of years. By the nature of the process they can't be at the same place at the same time.

Sure, but we still have coral reefs, do we not? A flood of the proportions you suggest would have killed off all coral reefs. If not the depth of water, then the turbidity would have made them extinct. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Sometimes, I just have to pull rank and say that scientists are special.

I don't see why not?What you are saying is that as soon as an area is eroded, sedimentary deposition stops.Don't you agree that it just goes elsewhere? There is nothing in the science of geology that says this. Can you document or otherwise support this statement? There seems to be a lot that you don'get.

And you get all of this from the Bible. Wow... Astounding how much you know about a flood that left no evidence behind.But I can see now why you wouldn't want to answer my question. And you have evidence for this, of course. Actually, it's more like puzzlement. If the land were covered by water, I wouldn't consider it to be land any more.

Well, deposited... Well, they are sedimentary. And no, they are not all just like other sediments. In fact, even other sediments are not necessarily planar slabs. That's plain silly. Faith, do you ever think about what you write before you write it? The bulk of limestones are sedimentary and tabular in form. Some are reefal deposits and they can be seen as irregularly shaped.I REALLY wish you had taken just one geology course before you began posting here. I think that you are disagreeing just to be disagreeable.

Of course you don't. But will you then explain what happens to sediments that are being eroded right now.Or are you saying that mountain ranges are not eroding away and filling rivers with sediment? No, it is not. That is your strawman. What are they going to say a mllion years from now? You have no concept of time or processes and I can't help you with that. To you. I don't see many people agreeing.And you know what I say when a YEC says something is obvious?

Well, I'm never quite sure what you mean. Heh, heh...I think everything you say is unusual. Except that you never present evidence, only assertions.And no, you don't use the same information.

So, the sediments deposited at the mouths of rivers is not part of the geological record. I have asked you to back up this statement.You have failed to do so.

I was thinking that maybe you could communicate better. But they are not necessarily so. Just because the GC layers are tabular does not mean that all sedimentary deposits are tablular. What about river deltas? How do you think they show up in the geological record? Or river deposits? I assure you that your depth of understanding here is inadequate to debate. You just sound silly.

I'm only trying to help. But it doesn't seem to do much good.

Yes, Faith, everyone around here is crazy except you.