Summations Only

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

You are by far the weirdest opponent I've ever had to deal with here. I'm sure you could say the same about me.

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.