Growing the Geologic Column

That's convenient. I wouldn't dig too deeply. This way, you can make up whatever you want. Why? The evidence does not support a truly global flood. That is, unless you would consider today's oceans as a global flood as well. There is no evidence out there that is diagnostic of a global flood. You are describing dogma. A belief system not supported by facts and yet unquestionable. It would seem to me that such an event would have ample evidence, and yet I see nothing of the kind.

And yet, you can say that you know God's mind on this. Why are you not deluded? Are you not a fallible human?

The Bible isn't that hard to understand on the issues that matter. All you have to do is be honest and believe what it says. The parts that are problematic require consulting commentaries or leaving them until God gives you understanding of them. Yes you can know and understand the Bible but you have to be willing to accept what it actually says as the truth. The problem is too many people balk at it where it contradicts human wisdom and try to make it fit such things as humanly created science and then they go very very wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Anyone who can't see the evidence for the Flood in the miles-deep sedimentary strata and their fossil contents has no appreciation of what evidence is. Or the rest of the ravaged planet we live on for that matter.Yes the Bible is dogma. That's what God's revelation is. It's the only information we MUST believe because He gave it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Those strata date to vastly different time periods.This shows your beliefs are wrong.

Thank you for your very predictable periodic reminder of the Correct Opinion.

"strata and their fossil contents..."Yes, Faith, that 100% absence of crabs in the strata that have trilobites, and the 100% absence of trilobites up among the crabs are just such a good strong convincer. You keep acting like it is, anyway.But it's the opposite of a convincer. And it's one of a couple of hundred similar non-convincers.

Is that why there are several hundred Christian denominations? Ah, I see, it's that easy. Kind of like the internet. That's what I do with evidence. And the evidence says nothing about a truly global flood. To me, that means the story is allegory. You mean the human wisdom is correct only when it agrees with the Bible.So, where does the Bible say that the planet is 6ky old? Why should it be that difficult?Common sense tells me that evaporites should not be deposited in a flood. It also tells me that while the Grand Canyon area was relatively quiescent during the Paleozoic, there was a lot going on elsewhere in the world. The fact that you have to confine yourself to isolated locations and times to support your viewpoint suggests to me that you are making stuff up.

So, how is that different from the modern understanding of geology?What is your evidence? Ravaged? You'll have to ask God why the evidence does not support that position.

Seems to me that you are telling us what the 'correct opinion' is. You know, the dogma. Coyote is just stating facts that you have failed to refute.

That's just a weird misrepresentation of the facts. Note that I said "the issues that matter," and the vast majority of all those denominations agree on those. The differences are on minor points, points of organization usually. Debunkers like to make this statistic sound like something it's not. It would be nice if you'd respect that I'm being serious and remarks like that are out of order. But the fact is that you are misinterpreting the evidence when it comes to the events of the past. Of course. It's calculated from the ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis 5, other genealogies and other clues in the text, plus historical facts apart from the Bible such as the known reign of some kings. Fallen human nature is geared to contradicting God. That's why He gave us the Bible. A Bible believer then looks for other explanations. Such as that they leached out of the rocks after they were deposited, which looks to me like it fits the known facts of what happens where there are salt deposits. But that's why I'm looking for information about other parts of the world in the cross sections I've been collecting. Getting a good collection isn't easy. Other languages, inferior diagrams, stuff too small to read clearly, and the basic problem of how complicated the geology is elsewhere, the enormous amount of faulting for instance. I believe I can reconstruct the original situation through all that but I don't know if I could convince you. I do think you must have been convinced by me about the "quiescent" Grand Canyon during the Paleozoic (really the Phanerozoic), since I've never encountered that idea anywhere else. I'm sure you'll deny it but oh well. Anyway maybe there's hope for convincing you of a few other things.

Isn't it clear yet? You misunderstand the evidence.

I guess "moving the goalpost" is not really the right term. You have stated that your idea is that all the sediment was deposited before any tectonic activity occurred.My comment about "moving the goalpost" is more about your acceptance of geological time period a sediment is assigned to. You can make a comment like this: The problem is you have no objective way to correlate the layers. It s easy to just dismiss any examples as "too young," "not part of a deep stack," whatever fits your whim.It is more like you are asking us to show you a square circle.So what layers represent flood deposits? I think you once said from the Tapeats to the Claron which spans the periods from the end of the Precambrian to the Eocene. Would this be the geological limits of the flood in your thinking?The other problem, which I have already mentioned, is that if the flood deposits stop at the Eocene, then everything above that has accumilated in the last 4,000 years. And yet you complain that no significant sedimentation is going on today. For example, the diagram that JonF presented in Message 214 has 600 meters (almost 2,000 feet) of sediment and tuff. How does that happen in 4,000 years (without the flood waters)??So how about the stratigraphic section I presented from Alaska. Those are basalt flows from the Triassic period, bound on either end with limestone. Is that far enough down the stack? It should be right in the middle of the flood time period. ------------By the way, I did not say that basalt is never an intrusion. I said it is an extrusive rock. Moose and edge both confirmed this and agreed that a basalt should be considered extrusive unless otherwise indicated. So a basalt sill would be an intrusive rock. Whether that is appropriate to call an intrusion a basalt may be questionable, but as Percy pointed out, it seems to be commonly used, at least on the internet.The part I got wrong is that it is not a basalt because it is extrusive, it is a basalt because it is fine grained. It is fine grained because it cooled quickly and being exposed to the surface causes it to cool quickly. Some intrusions may also cool quickly and so can be classified as a basalt. But your response that MOST basalt are intrusion is not correct.I hope that clears up the basalt issue.HBD

So here we go with apologetics again. I thought your treatment of geology and a worldwide flood were supposedly scientific.

There never was another "apologetics," that was just someone's made-up accusation. And this isn't apologetics either, I'm getting interrogated so I'm answering the questions I'm asked. Maybe if I answer them enough they'll stop asking them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.