Summations Only

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, I do not see how the sediments deposited at the mouths of rivers have anything whatever to do with the Geological Time Scale. That is a done deal, a very specific stacking of sediments to an incredible depth that has come to an end.The backing up of the statement about the Geological Time Scale as wholly determined by the physical ascent of one "time period" laid down upon another, is in the facts given. You don't know an assertion from a model.I have to get out of this loony bin for a while.

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

After reading through the discussion of the past 24 hours I can only echo Moose's comment from Message 989: "Boggled."If I responded to everything you said that I could make no sense of I would be here all day, so I'll just ask about this: This sounds like you're saying that sedimentation at the mouths of rivers has come to an end and is no longer taking place. Do I understand you correctly? Or are you just saying that deltas we find buried within a sedimentary stack are no longer receiving sedimentation (which would make sense since they're buried)?Edge has been describing how both erosion and sedimentation are taking place all the time. Uplifted regions are being eroded at the same time that low lying regions are receiving deposits of the eroded material from uplifted regions. Uplifted regions are getting lower as the material comprising them is eroded away, and low lying regions are getting higher as sediments are deposited upon them.In an uplifted region that is being eroded away, such as the Claron with its hoodoos, the geological column is gradually disappearing. Someday the Claron will be gone and there will be no remaining explicit physical record of its existence.But in low lying regions sedimentary material is being deposited and there the geological column is gradually growing, centimeter by centimeter, year after year.--Percy

Absolutely false.Scientists rely on evidence to lead to their theories. Creationists typically rely on belief to cherry-pick any facts that they can twist, misrepresent, or obfuscate enough to support that belief while ignoring everything that contradicts that belief. That sedimentation rates for today are not applicable to the past is wishful thinking on the part of creationists--wishful thinking without a shred of evidence to support it.Wishful thinking without a shred of evidence is the typical creationist method used to shore up their beliefs. "But what if cows could fly?" makes about as much sense as the rationalizations you come up with.And you have the brass to call what you are doing science? What a joke!

As I look at things this morning, I'm thinking that maybe Faith has a problem discerning the Geologic Time Scale from 'the' geological column. Such things happen when one has no real grasp of the subject.

Just as a public announcement, I sometimes break down a long post into two or more responses. This is for the purpose of brevity as well as to manage time when I'm rushed. If this is inappropriate, let me know.

Well, very little in actual fact. They, do however, have a lot to do with the stratigraphic column of that particular area.The geological time scale is just like a calendar with nice little boxes, whereas the sedimentary strata are like the events of any particular day. Some days, there isn't much going on, while others are packed with events and information. In a particular area, yes; at least until that areas subsides below base level so that sediments can collect again.I'm curious, do you believe that any unconformities exist? I"m not sure what facts you are talking about. The stratigraphic succession in any one area is unique and may or may not have the entire time scale represented, in fact most don't... And Geology does not say otherwise. YOU may, but no one in the field would ever say such a thing. non sequitur

No, it's the Geological Time Scale that has come to an end. Sedimentation everywhere else, including river deltas continues, this is what has nothing whatever to do with the Geological Time Scale, which is "a done deal, a very specific stacking of sediments to an incredible depth that has come to an end." Of course not. Edge brought up river deltas that are going on today, I answered in terms of river deltas that are doing on today. The idea that any of that has to do with the Geological Time Scale is what is boggling. The Geological Time Scale is based on the Geological column which is a stack of strata to which time periods hae been assigned which you can see for instance in any diagram of the Grand Canyon region. They are all there, they climb up the strata ladder through all those time periods.You can also see it on the map of Great Britain that also got some discussion here: all the strata in one place ascending from one to another, all representing particular time periods. It may be folded over, it may be eroded away in places, but the whole time table is represented in any such continuous deposit.And can't possibly be represented in other sedimentation that is going on now because the time table ASCENDS, CLIMBS.Erosion has absolutely nothing to do with it. It came to an end because it came to an end and NOW it is being eroded in all those places. The strata all got laid down, THEN they got folded and eroded, but FIRST they all got laid down as a continuous stack, up which the time periods supposedly ascend. This is easily seen in the GC and Great Britain. It is less easily seen where more of the stack has been eroded away but it was all there originally too.Oh well, there is a vested interest here in thinking it continues so there's no hope of demonstrating this obvious fact that it's come to an end I guess. Maybe other representative examples will come up eventually.Sigh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes there are gaps, but there is never a different order, and time periods are always assigned to whatever portion of the stack is there. All climbing up the stack and not being relocated somewhere else like the bottom of the ocean. I think the gaps of course are another sort of problem for the idea of the Geological Time Scale: You all assume they were originally there but got eroded away before the next layer deposited, so accepting your view of it, there may be gaps but wherever the stack was laid down it can be considered to have been originally continuous from Precambrian to Holocene.The absence of the more "recent" periods could very likely be the result of erosion, however, as it is for instance throughout the GC-GS area. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The very idea that such a thing ever happens or has ever happened is sheer speculative nonsense. Meanwhile if sediments are collecting somewhere else entirely such as at the bottom of the ocean far from the stack in question, they are clearly not and never will be part of the Geological Time Scale OR the Geological Column. The kind you can see, yes, but not the kind you imagine, the ones you call "gaps" where you assume a layer used to be but got eroded away before the next deposited. No, those I do not believe exist.

How is that clear? It sounds like you're saying, "Black is clearly white."

Stack.
Ascent.
Climb.
Whole stack assumed even where gaps.
All on the land mass.
Time periods assigned even to incomplete stacks.
Whole stack in one place, not scattered places.Sediment depositing elsewhere is not the Geological Column OR the Geological Time Table.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.